NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: nnsquad Digest, Vol 2, Issue 137
v
On Jun 9, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Rollie Cole wrote:
Some industrial electricity customers get a lower rate because they are willing to "be browned out" when demand peaks. Is it technically possible to offer one rate for those willing to be delayed during congestion and another for those who insist on "best efforts" 24/7?
Also, think of first-class mail versus 2nd and 3rd class.
Note, such schemes do NOTHING to deal with a system that sets aside huge percentages of available bandwidth for provider content, but may help in allocating that percentage that is made available for user-directed uploads and downloads.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:28 PM, <nnsquad-request@nnsquad.org> wrote:
NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
http://www.nnsquad.org
Today's Topics:
1. [IP] Re: Third Major ISP AT&T Testing Bandwidth Caps in the Fall [with a comment by me djf] (Lauren Weinstein) 2. AT&T reverses -- now looking at bandwidth caps (can you say "U-verse"?) (Lauren Weinstein) 3. "discrimination based on user-history" - will fairness make congestion the norm? (Wes Felter) 4. differential bandwidth usage vs. caps (Lauren Weinstein) 5. Fairness doctrines Re: [IP] [with a comment by djf] (Nick Weaver)
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -
Message: 1 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:51:22 -0700 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> Subject: [ NNSquad ] [IP] Re: Third Major ISP AT&T Testing Bandwidth Caps in the Fall [with a comment by me djf] To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Cc: lauren@vortex.com Message-ID: <200806081551.m58FpMhv024739@chrome.vortex.com>
- ------- Forwarded Message
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 08:40:59 -0700
Subject: [IP] Re: Third Major ISP AT&T Testing Bandwidth Caps in the Fall
[with a comment by me djf]
Aurthor requested to be anonymous due to employment djf
"One theory for why bandwidth caps might alleviate some congestion, especially upstream congestion, is that it will inhibit users from engaging in activities where they do not know how much bandwidth they are actually using, for example, P2P seeding. A P2P user may be less inclined to leave their computer on 24 hours a day to seed content if they have no idea whether the end result could be that they exceed their monthly cap (and face large fees). However, if that is in fact one of the ISPs' goals, they should consider only imposing a bandwidth cap on upstream traffic. This would negate any claims that this is being done as a "CLEAR competitive advantage in favor" of their own video offerings.
By the way, another reason ISPs may be resorting to this model is because every other engineering network management technique that has been tried and made public has been used by proponents for net neutrality to launch new calls for legislation or FCC regulation. Even the latest proposals to move away from protocol-agnostic management techniques to "fair share" management have been criticized as discriminatory against particular users; there is currently an active discussion about this between certain participants in the IETF's P2P Infrastructure Workshop. And according to some advocates who participated in the P2Pi Workshop, "discrimination based on user-history is no better than protocol-discriminatory behavior.""
- - ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:46:50 -0700 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> Subject: [ NNSquad ] AT&T reverses -- now looking at bandwidth caps (can you say "U-verse"?) To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Cc: lauren@vortex.com Message-ID: <200806081546.m58Fko5L024595@chrome.vortex.com>
Note that for ages AT&T has been claiming they didn't see any need for themselves to apply bandwidth caps to their subcribers, since "their DSL offerings didn't have the same technical problems as cable operators" in terms of congestion. Now, suddenly, we're hearing talk of backbone congestion rather than last-mile congestion as an excuse for looking at such caps.
Is it merely a coincidence that this change of heart comes at the same time that AT&T is rapidly deploying their DSL-based U-verse system, which bases its primary income stream on people buying TV content via U-verse rather than from competing outside Internet services?
Even more importantly, given that we don't really know what's going on in terms of most of these carriers' true bandwidth and traffic characteristics, how can any "outsider" judge whether or not they're being told the unvarnished and unbiased truth in any these regards?
--Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator
------- Forwarded Message
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: [IP] Third Major ISP AT&T Testing Bandwidth Caps in the Fall [with a
comment by me djf]
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:01:49 -0400
- --Apple-Mail-223-550791887 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am at a loss to see how such a cap will really help. The issue is=20=20
not the amount of bits you move but when you move it. If the=20=20
competition for the bandwidth is sleeping then you can send with no=20=20
impact. If you try when the kids get home from school things are busy=20=20
and so large transfers slow things down. All an issue of busy hour=20=20
design. What such caps DO create is an additional cost for people who=20=
=20
are transferring large objects across the net -- like HD programs=20=20
LEGALLY. Several of such transfers can eat up your allocation and then=20=
=20
if they charge say $1/gig -- a HD can cost you what $3 to $4. Now=20=20
usually the cable operator (and the FIOS) uses another channel to=20=20
deliver VOD so, if I understand it right, they have created, by such=20=20
a capacity model, a CLEAR competitive advantage in favor of themselves.
Neat way around the NetNeurality potholes.
Am I missing something.
Dave
http://gizmodo.com/5014290/welcome-to-the-future-of-broadband- third-major-i=
sp-att-testing-bandwidth-caps-in-the-fall
AT&T chief tech officer John Donovan has told Wired that they're going=20=
=20
to test bandwidth caps in the fall, making them the third of the four=20=20
major ISPs to do so. (Verizon stands alone, but for how long?) He lays=20=
=20
out the familiar rationale, a small group of users (5 percent) pillage=20=
=20
the network (40 percent) and they've got to stop them. But then he=20=20
slips what's probably the real reason they've moving to caps: "Traffic=20=
=20
on our backbone is growing 60 percent per year, but our revenue is not."
It is more or less accepted that a minority of users use=20=20
disproportionate of bandwidth, but what they're using it for is=20=20
changing. It's increasingly video, not BitTorrent. The whole pro-=20
BitTorrent thing is a smokescreen, because BitTorrent is less and less=20=
=20
of an issue=97video, and increasingly, HD video will be the real one.=20=20
(Along with any number of other increasingly bandwidth- intensive=20=20
apps.) And it'll be more and more competitive with providers' TV=20=20
offerings=97we've already seen Time Warner cry about it. But there's no=20=
=20
legitimate way to block it and protect their content.
They can, however, make it more expensive for you to download with=20=20
bandwidth caps (which is conveniently net neutral). And that's what I=20=20
think this is partially about=97protecting their TV business, not just=20=
=20
curbing voracious bandwidth appetites. Regardless of the motivations,=20=20
it's definitely coming. Comcast's tests will probably start soon, Time=20=
=20
Warner's are already underwayand regional ISPs have been doing it for=20=20
a while. It's looking very much like the future of broadband here.
At least if we're using it less maybe the internet won't explode now.=20=20
[Wired]
- ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=3Dnow RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
- --Apple-Mail-223-550791887 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webk=
it-line-break: after-white-space; "><base href=3D"data:";><div style=3D"font=
- -family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; ">I am=
at a loss to see how such a cap will really help. The issue is not the amo=
unt of bits you move but when you move it. If the competition for the bandw=
idth is sleeping then you can send with no impact. If you try when the kids=
get home from school things are busy and so large transfers slow things do=
wn. All an issue of busy hour design. What such caps DO create is an =
additional cost for people who are transferring large objects&nbs=
p;across the net -- like HD programs LEGALLY. Several of such transfer=
s can eat up your allocation and then if they charge say $1/gig -=
- - a HD can cost you what $3 to $4. Now usually the cable operator (an=
d the FIOS) uses another channel to deliver VOD so, if I understand i=
t right, they have created, by such a capacity model, a CLEAR competit=
ive advantage in favor of themselves.</div><div style=3D"font- family: =
Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><br></div><di=
v style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-alig=
n: left; ">Neat way around the NetNeurality potholes.</div><div style=3D"fo=
nt-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><b=
r></div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black=
; text-align: left; ">Am I missing something.</div><div style=3D"font-=
family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><br><=
/div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; t=
ext-align: left; ">Dave</div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-siz=
e: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><br></div><div style=3D"font-fam=
ily: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><br></di=
v><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text=
- -align: left; "><br></div><a href=3D"http://gizmodo.com/5014290/ welcome-to-=
the-future-of-broadband-third-major-isp-att-testing-bandwidth-caps- in-the-f=
all">http://gizmodo.com/5014290/welcome-to-the-future-of-broadband- third-ma=
jor-isp-att-testing-bandwidth-caps-in-the-fall</a><div style=3D"font-family=
: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><br class=
=3D"webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; f=
ont-size: 12px; color: black; text-align: left; "><span class=3D"Apple-styl=
e-span" style=3D"font-family: 'Lucida Grande'; line-height: 20px; "><div cl=
ass=3D"entry" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin- left: 0p=
x; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left:=
0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border- bottom-width: =
0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; =
outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; vertica=
l-align: baseline; min-height: 100px; margin-right: 10px; width: 506px; lin=
e-height: 1.7em; color: rgb(81, 100, 107); font-size: 1.06em; font- family: =
'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, Verdana, times, serif; "><p style=3D"padding-top: =
0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top=
- -width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left=
- -width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0=
px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 100%; font-f=
amily: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; margin-top: 0px; margin- right: 0p=
x; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 0px; ">AT&T chief tech officer Jo=
hn Donovan has told Wired that they're going to test bandwidth caps in the =
fall, making them the third of the <a href=3D"http:// gizmodo.com/37876=
0/will-your-isp-f-you-in-the-a-bandwidth-hogs-beware" style=3D"margin-top: =
0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: =
0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top=
- -width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style:=
initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline- style: initial=
; outline-color: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-a=
lign: baseline; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weigh=
t: normal; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-b=
ottom-color: initial; ">four major ISPs to do so</a>. (Verizon stands alone=
, but for how long?) He lays out the familiar rationale, a small group of u=
sers (5 percent) pillage the network (40 percent) and they've got to stop t=
hem. But then he slips what's probably the real reason they've moving to ca=
ps: "Traffic on our backbone is growing 60 percent per year, but our revenu=
e is not."</p><p style=3D"padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bot=
tom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right- width: 0px=
; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; =
border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-=
color: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical- align: base=
line; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left=
: 0px; ">It is more or less accepted that a minority of users use dispropor=
tionate of bandwidth, but what they're using it for is changing. It's =
<a href=3D"http://gizmodo.com/382691/10-percent-of-broadband- subscribers-su=
ck-up-80-percent-of-bandwidth-but-p2p-no-longer-to-blame" style=3D"margin-t=
op: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-t=
op: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border=
- -top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-st=
yle: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline- style: ini=
tial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertic=
al-align: baseline; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-w=
eight: normal; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; bord=
er-bottom-color: initial; ">increasingly video, not BitTorrent</ a>. The who=
le pro-BitTorrent thing <a href=3D"http://gizmodo.com/373162/ comcast-n=
- -bittorrent-bff-whats-good-what-sucks" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-rig=
ht: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-ri=
ght: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top- width: 0px; bo=
rder-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; borde=
r-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color=
: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;=
color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; bord=
er-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-bottom- color: in=
itial; ">is a smokescreen</a>, because BitTorrent is less and less of an is=
sue=97video, and increasingly, HD video will be the real one. (Along with a=
ny number of other increasingly bandwidth-intensive apps.) And it'll be mor=
e and more competitive with providers' TV offerings=97we've already seen&nb=
sp;<a href=3D"http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/the-real- fight-over-=
fake-news/" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin- bottom: 0px=
; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding- bottom: 0=
px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; bord=
er-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-w=
idth: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font- size: 100%;=
font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); =
text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; border-bottom-width: 0px; borde=
r-bottom-style: initial; border-bottom-color: initial; ">Time Warner cry ab=
out it</a>. But there's no legitimate way to block it and protect their con=
tent.</p><p style=3D"padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding- bottom: =
0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; bor=
der-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; borde=
r-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color=
: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline;=
margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin- left: 0px=
; ">They can, however, make it more expensive for you to download with band=
width caps (which is conveniently <a href=3D"http:// gizmodo.com/gadget=
s/net-neuterality/att-considering-scary-content+recognizing-anti +piracy-fil=
ter-for-entire-network-320689.php" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: =
0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right:=
0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border=
- -right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-co=
lor: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline- color: in=
itial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; col=
or: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; border-b=
ottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-bottom- color: initia=
l; ">net neutral</a>). And that's what I think this is partially about=97pr=
otecting their TV business, not just curbing voracious bandwidth appetites.=
Regardless of the motivations, it's definitely coming. Comcast's tests wil=
l <a href=3D"http://gizmodo.com/5012735/comcast-starts-net- neutral-slo=
wdowns-of-heavy-broadband-users" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin- right: 0p=
x; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding- right: 0=
px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-r=
ight-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-colo=
r: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline- color: init=
ial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; color=
: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; border-bot=
tom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-bottom-color: initial;=
">probably start soon</a>, Time Warner's are <a href=3D"http://gizmod=
o.com/5012427/time-warner-monthly-data-caps-detailed" style=3D"margin-top: =
0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: =
0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top=
- -width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style:=
initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline- style: initial=
; outline-color: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-a=
lign: baseline; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weigh=
t: normal; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-b=
ottom-color: initial; ">already underway</a>and <a href=3D"http://gizm=
odo.com/377955/the-future-of-broadband-were-totally-screwed" style=3D"margi=
n-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; paddin=
g-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; bor=
der-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border=
- -style: initial; border-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: =
initial; outline-color: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; ver=
tical-align: baseline; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; fon=
t-weight: normal; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; b=
order-bottom-color: initial; ">regional ISPs have</a> been doing it fo=
r a while. It's looking very much like the future of broadband here.</p><p =
style=3D"padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding=
- -left: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-w=
idth: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border- color: ini=
tial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; f=
ont-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; margin-top:=
0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 0px; ">At least=
if we're using it less maybe the <a href=3D"http:// gizmodo.com/381782=
/att-the-internet-will-explode-in-2010" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-ri=
ght: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-r=
ight: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top- width: 0px; b=
order-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; bord=
er-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-colo=
r: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline=
; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; bor=
der-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-bottom- color: i=
nitial; ">internet won't explode now</a>. [<a href=3D"http:// blog.wired.com=
/business/2008/06/att-embraces-bi.html" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-ri=
ght: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-r=
ight: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top- width: 0px; b=
order-right-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; bord=
er-color: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-colo=
r: initial; font-size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline=
; color: rgb(220, 135, 14); text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal; bor=
der-bottom-width: 0px; border-bottom-style: initial; border-bottom- color: i=
nitial; ">Wired</a>]</p><div><br></div></div><div id=3D"post- supplement" st=
yle=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left:=
0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-le=
ft: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border- bottom-widt=
h: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border- color: initia=
l; outline-width: 0px; outline-style: initial; outline-color: initial; font=
- -size: 100%; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; font: normal n=
ormal normal 0.92em/normal 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, Verdana; clear: both; "=</div></span></div><div style=3D"padding:0 4px 4px 4px;background- color:#f=ff;clear:both" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff"> <hr>
<table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" width=3D"100%" styl=
e=3D"background-color:#fff" bgcolor=3D"#ffffff">
<tr>
<td padding=3D"4px">
<font color=3D"black" size=3D"1" face=3D"helvetica, sans- serif;">
<a style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:#669933;border-bottom: 1px sol=
id #444444"
href=3D"http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=3Dnow"; title=3D"Go to ar=
chives for ip">Archives</a>
<a border=3D"0" style=3D"text-decoration:none;color:#669933" href=3D"http:/=
/www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/" title=3D"RSS feed for ip"><img bo=
rder=3D0 src=3D"https://www.listbox.com/images/feed- icon-10x10.jpg"></a>
<td valign=3D"top" align=3D"right"><a style=3D"border- bottom:none;" href=3D=
"http://www.listbox.com";>
<img src=3D"https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.jpg";
title=3D"Powered by Listbox" border=3D"0" /></a></td>
</font> </td> </tr> </table> </div> </body></html>=
- --Apple-Mail-223-550791887--
------- End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 12:49:33 -0500 From: Wes Felter <wesley@felter.org> Subject: [ NNSquad ] "discrimination based on user-history" - will fairness make congestion the norm? To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Message-ID: <1C54B5E9-60C6-455A-BA6E-AB7AE0544287@felter.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Even the latest proposals to move away from protocol-agnostic management techniques to "fair share" management have been criticized as discriminatory against particular users; there is currently an active discussion about this between certain participants in the IETF's P2P Infrastructure Workshop. And according to some advocates who participated in the P2Pi Workshop, "discrimination based on user-history is no better than protocol-discriminatory behavior.""
Here is the source, from Robb Topolski:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2pi/current/msg00072.html
I think it's worth reading the entire thread.
Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org - http://felter.org/wesley/
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 11:04:49 -0700 From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> Subject: [ NNSquad ] differential bandwidth usage vs. caps To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Cc: lauren@vortex.com Message-ID: <200806081804.m58I4orU026369@chrome.vortex.com>
A quick preface to the message below. Some observers tend to lump all downloading into pretty much a single category, but even in the entertainment context, there is a lot of variation that directly impacts issues of bandwidth utilization.
If you're watching a live event, or sampling short videos, you obviously must operate in a streaming context (certainly in the former case), with streams of varying bandwidth for given periods of time. This will tend to occur most during those times of day when most people are awake, may cluster in local time evening and weekend periods, and so on.
If you're going to watch a movie, you might have to stream (I believe
Netflix's new service is streaming based, at least as I've heard
it described). On the other hand, if you're not in a big rush, you
could theoretically schedule the download for the dead of night at
even higher speed, when you'd be competing less with local users during
the busy evening viewing period in particular.
The problem with this of course, is that while there have been services to stage downloads in such a manner, most of the TV show/movie downloading services are based on instant gratification, and the last thing that they want to do is slow you down when you're ready to pay and watch. So usually the entire orientation is toward getting the content to you as rapidly as possible when you want to watch it, rather than delayed bulk download.
This is a difficult nut to crack, since it relates at least as much to "I want it now!" human nature, as to technology itself.
--Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator
------- Forwarded Message
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:21:01 -0700
Subject: [IP] Re: WORTH READING Third Major ISP AT&T Testing Bandwidth Caps in the Fall [with a comment by me djf]
________________________________________
From: Tony Lauck [tlauck@madriver.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2008 1:06 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Third Major ISP AT&T Testing Bandwidth Caps in the Fall [with a comment by me djf]
Dave,
Along this line, Bob Briscoe's work is relevant. I believe this link was
previously published on IP, but here it is again for the benefit of
those who missed it:
http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/bbriscoe/projects/2020comms/refb/ fair_ccr.pdf
This paper has two key ideas: (1)resources need to be allocated according to economic interests (e.g. customers) and not technical objects (e.g. TCP connections or IP addresses), (2)when ascertaining resource usage by customer for purposes of providing fair allocation, only resource usage by a customer that delays *other* customers is relevant.
There are political, regulatory and emotional issues involved when large
government regulated monopolistic corporations are involved. Rather than
debate those here, I will give a simple example of a cooperative network
among three friends. This will clearly illustrate the idle resource issue.
Suppose that three friends live a long way away from IP access and they
decide to pool their resources and build a cooperative network. For
geographical reasons the only significant cost of this network is the
cost of building and operating a shared access link. Being somewhat
frugal, they purchase a link with limited bandwidth. It provides good
service when only one user is actively transmitting or receiving
packets, but noticeably poorer service when two or more users are
active. User C is the first to use the service and quickly becomes used
to good service. After a while A and B also begin to use the network,
and user C starts to experience reduced performance.
Now suppose user C becomes annoyed at his poor performance when he uses
the network in the evening. He decides to do something about it and
identify which of his friends is causing him the problem, hoping to
persuade that friend to send or receive fewer packets or to kick in a
larger share so that a faster access link can be afforded. He looks at
monthly usage statistics and concludes that he and user A are "moderate"
users, but that user B transmits and receives ten times as many packets,
clearly "excessive" usage. He decides to complain to user B.
User B points out that he *never* uses the network in the evening and
that he is not affecting user C's performance at all. He does a lot of
bulk transfers in the middle of the night while A and C are sleeping,
accounting for his heavy monthly usage. He suggests that C talk to A
instead.
While the situation is complicated in a real-world ISP situation by
contractual, economic and political factors, not to mention more complex
technical factors such as multiple bottlenecks and many more customers,
the basic principle is the same. Usage of otherwise idle resources can
never be considered excessive.
Tony www.aglauck.com
David Farber wrote:I am at a loss to see how such a cap will really help. The issue is not
the amount of bits you move but when you move it. If the competition for
the bandwidth is sleeping then you can send with no impact. If you try
when the kids get home from school things are busy and so large
transfers slow things down. All an issue of busy hour design. What such
caps DO create is an additional cost for people who
are transferring large objects across the net -- like HD programs
LEGALLY. Several of such transfers can eat up your allocation and then
if they charge say $1/gig -- a HD can cost you what $3 to $4. Now
usually the cable operator (and the FIOS) uses another channel to
deliver VOD so, if I understand it right, they have created, by such a
capacity model, a CLEAR competitive advantage in favor of themselves.
Neat way around the NetNeurality potholes.
Am I missing something.
Dave
http://gizmodo.com/5014290/welcome-to-the-future-of-broadband- third-major-isp-att-testing-bandwidth-caps-in-the-fall
AT&T chief tech officer John Donovan has told Wired that they're going
to test bandwidth caps in the fall, making them the third of the four
major ISPs to do so
<http://gizmodo.com/378760/will-your-isp-f-you-in-the-a-bandwidth- hogs-beware>.
(Verizon stands alone, but for how long?) He lays out the familiar
rationale, a small group of users (5 percent) pillage the network (40
percent) and they've got to stop them. But then he slips what's probably
the real reason they've moving to caps: "Traffic on our backbone is
growing 60 percent per year, but our revenue is not."
It is more or less accepted that a minority of users use
disproportionate of bandwidth, but what they're using it for is
changing. It's increasingly video, not BitTorrent
<http://gizmodo.com/382691/10-percent-of-broadband-subscribers- suck-up-80-percent-of-bandwidth-but-p2p-no-longer-to-blame>.
The whole pro-BitTorrent thing is a smokescreen
<http://gizmodo.com/373162/comcast-n-bittorrent-bff-whats-good- what-sucks>,
because BitTorrent is less and less of an issue—video, and increasingly,
HD video will be the real one. (Along with any number of other
increasingly bandwidth-intensive apps.) And it'll be more and more
competitive with providers' TV offerings—we've already seen Time Warner
cry about it
<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/the-real-fight-over- fake-news/>.
But there's no legitimate way to block it and protect their content.
They can, however, make it more expensive for you to download with
bandwidth caps (which is conveniently net neutral
<http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/net-neuterality/att-considering-scary- content+recognizing-anti+piracy-filter-for-entire- network-320689.php>).
And that's what I think this is partially about—protecting their TV
business, not just curbing voracious bandwidth appetites. Regardless of
the motivations, it's definitely coming. Comcast's tests will probably
start soon
<http://gizmodo.com/5012735/comcast-starts-net-neutral-slowdowns- of-heavy-broadband-users>,
Time Warner's are already underway
<http://gizmodo.com/5012427/time-warner-monthly-data-caps- detailed>and regional
ISPs have
<http://gizmodo.com/377955/the-future-of-broadband-were-totally- screwed> been
doing it for a while. It's looking very much like the future of
broadband here.
At least if we're using it less maybe the internet won't explode now
<http://gizmodo.com/381782/att-the-internet-will-explode-in-2010>.
[Wired <http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/06/att-embraces- bi.html>]
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> [Powered by Listbox]
<http://www.listbox.com>
- -- "Difficulties can never be greater than your capacity to solve them." - P. R. Sarkar
Anthony G. Lauck PO Box 59 Warren, VT 05674 Southface 5 (for UPS and FedEX) 81 Park Ave Warren, VT 05674 (802) 583-4405 (802) 329-2006 (FAX)
- ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
------- End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 13:02:58 -0700 From: "Nick Weaver" <nweaver@gmail.com> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Fairness doctrines Re: [IP] [with a comment by djf] To: "Lauren Weinstein" <lauren@vortex.com> Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Message-ID: <8cef5dcf0806081302k28446e9cq3358afd0a10e6aa@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
- ------- Forwarded Message
From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Even the latest proposals to move away from protocol-agnostic management techniques to "fair share" management have been criticized as discriminatory against particular users; there is currently an active discussion about this between certain participants in the IETF's P2P Infrastructure Workshop. And according to some advocates who participated in the P2Pi Workshop, "discrimination based on user-history is no better than protocol-discriminatory behavior.""
This is a viewpoint that I don't understand.
One can come up with very clear definitions of fairness: EG,
"When viewed as a weighted average over a 1 minute period, if N users are competing for a point of congestion, no user will exceed 1/N + epsilon of the available bandwidth" (with some smoothing function)
Or:
"During periods of congestion, the network will force all users to behave as if all their traffic was within a single TCP stream for the purposes of congestion control"
Or (very close to what comcast is proposing)
X% of the bandwidth is reserved for "low volume" users, who's packets have a QOS priority. Whenever the bandwidth desired by all users exceeds X, the heaviest users (as measured over the past Y minutes have their QOS marking changed to "no priority" and experience normal congestion-related packet drops.
As a consequence, lighter users will experience no congestion, and
heavy users will retain the normal "best effort" behavior, but only
amongst themselves. (Note, X should probably be less than 50%, and Y
should probably be based on some fraction of the median full-rate flow
duration.)
And then, once you define the fairness doctrine, have such mechanisms enforced by the network.
For those who feel this is somehow unacceptable, how is this more
damaging that usage caps or usage-based pricing (which, eg, eliminates
the ability to perform scavenger services altogether and destroy the
business case for commercial P2P bulk content distribution, and really
hurt streaming-media based distribution)?
How is this more damaging than the current model where misbehaving users (eg, many-simultaneous torrents, non-responsive P2P protocols) can disrupt all the other users?
And for those who say "the ISP needs to provision more bandwidth first", if the stated fairness doctrines provide good service (no sustained periods of congestion) for >90% of the users, the ISP has demonstrated that it is properly provisioned in the flat-rate pricing model.
[ Might be interesting to see how your average customer service rep would explain:
"When viewed as a weighted average over a 1 minute period, if N users are competing for a point of congestion, no user will exceed 1/N + epsilon of the available bandwidth"
to the typical subscriber upset about their Internet performance ...
-- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
End of nnsquad Digest, Vol 2, Issue 137 ***************************************
-- Rollie Cole 5315 Washington Blvd Indianapolis, IN 46220-3062 317-727-8940