[ NNSquad ] Re: "discrimination based on user-history" - will fairness make congestion the norm?

[Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com>]

Wes Felter wrote:
> > 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.

This is one more reason why I am leaning more and more toward allowing 
ISPs (as opposed to backbone providers) a lot of freedom in traffic 
management.  Not _total_ freedom: I think that the FCC should take 
action if/when an ISP's "traffic management" amounts to completely 
blocking some application, or heavily throttling some application even 
at low-traffic times (as has been reported wrt Comcast).

Penalizing applications because of some perceived problem ("all P2P 
users are copyright violators" or "our bandwidth problems are all caused 
by BitTorrent, so we'll randomly disrupt its connections regardless of 
whether or not we have available bandwidth") amounts to the kind of 
"punitive" contract clauses that are considered unenforceable in 
commercial law.

But when traffic really is heavy, I think that Comcast, TW, Cox, etc. 
should be able to
  a) prioritize based on protocol/port
  b) prioritize to favor less heavy users
  c) prioritize to favor users who pay more
  d) etc.
  e) combinations of the above

If they piss off too many customers, they will pay the price in 
decreased sales.  If they find the right mix, in terms of keeping most 
customers happy and encouraging the heaviest users to pay more for more 
service, they will make more money.  This is how capitalism is supposed 
to work.

Note that this applies to "burst usage" sales of the sort provided by 
most cable companies.  If an ISP offers "guaranteed bandwidth" (a la 
DSL, frex) then you should get that much bandwidth, and it should have 
purchased enough bandwidth from its upstream providers to ensure that 
bandwidth at all times.

Note this applies to ISPs, where the end-user has a direct contractual 
relationship.  I think that backbone providers should still be subject 
to common carrier rules -- at least as long as they are selling 
bandwidth as opposed to more complex services.

Part of my reasoning is basic free-market principles.  Part of it is 
analogy.  If I have a home firewall installed, it can and does look in 
my packets and decide which ones should get forwarded.  In principle, it 
could also prioritize them, although I don't think my current one does. 
 The same principle applies when I use the Internet at work.  My 
connection goes through my employer's firewall, which may apply its own 
rules as to what packets get through, and I don't even have the 
privilege of replacing it or changing the parameters -- somebody else 
decides what the rule are, and it is "bundled" with my employment.  In 
principle, my employer could even terminate my employment if they don't 
like the way I use their Internet connection.

In the same way, I have a contractual relationship with my ISP, which I 
am free to terminate if I don't like the way they manage their network. 
 So they should be free to (within reason) decide which packets have 
higher priority, etc.

This would allow combinations that IMHO would be beneficial.  E.g., the 
kind of usage-based prioritization that Topolski objects to, combined 
with something that picks off VOIP connections(*) and gives _those_ 
packets a higher priority.

(*) This could be as simple as inspection for port number, or it could 
be a full-fledged proxy that will only carry "real" VOIP protocol and 
won't "work" if somebody decides to put BT traffic on a port nominally 
designated for VOIP.  Or combined with a usage measurement that lets 
VOIP traffic go through at high priority, while throttling it if it 
exceeds typical VOIP usage by (say) a 2:1 margin.

*At the same time*, I note that many of the desired features can be 
obtained by the user-assigned priority scheme that others have 
suggested.  _You_ can assign (say) priority levels 1-4 (1 being highest) 
to your traffic, either statically (VOIP = priority 1, HTTP = priority 
2, BT = priority 4, or whatever) or by letting the application set the 
priority.   But these priorities would apply only _relative_ to your own 
usage.  If you are using more than your "fair share", your highest 
priority packets will go through first, but if you assign P1 to _all_ 
your traffic, it's the same as if it were all P4.

This would still let the poor woman with the huge upload make her VOIP 
call for a medical emergency (or just to chat with her cousin) even when 
throttling is being applied because the ISP's network is overloaded and 
she's a "heavy" user at the moment.  As long as her system is reasonably 
configured.  If her husband has set up his uploads to be P1, he probably 
gets what he deserves.  (Possibly a candidate for a Darwin award?)