NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Dave Farber Warns Against Net Neutrality (Washington Post)I
|
The only difference between
internetworking and networking is whether we have a flat address space or a
two-tier address space. Otherwise it’s a network. Sure, I’d prefer
ambient connectivity (http://rmf.vc/?n=IAC) but
if we’re not willing to take the next step then it’s a just a network
and whatever applied to the Inter-network applies to the network. And that
includes being indifferent to the content of the packets. So I’m confused. If the
success of the Internet as a concept is do being agnostic about traffic then
why would we want to declare the end of a very successful experiment and revert
to the old days when the network operator shaped the network to favor certain
services. The majority may to do the same-old in lock-step but the future lies
with those who are ahead of or maybe just away from the crowd. Who knows which will
be the new same-old? Ideally there would be no
need for regulation and we would instead apply antitrust to remove the conflict
of interest in inherent in funding the network by selling services. Service-funding
is the telephony model. And as long as we’re stuck in telephony then insisting
that bits are bits (as I explain in http://frankston.com/?N=IPM3)
the FCC is honoring the experiment by trying to assure it continues. I do
believe that it’s awkward to do so by adding more rules but it’s
better the giving up entirely on the successful experiment. -----Original Message----- The problem with turning the Internet over to the
regulators at this point is two-fold, as I see it. In the first place, the
Internet community hasn't done an adequate job of explaining the
design rationale for the system as it exists today. You can see from my
paper that basic concepts like end-to-end have been justified according to
a multitude of different reasons. When we see this in tech specs, it's a
clue that the principle in question is more a side-effect than a true
principle. The "stupid network," end-point-heavy formulations
are misleading. People treat the Internet like a network, because that's what
they need. The architecture of an Internet is simply agnostic about
questions of network reliability, traffic shaping, active queue
management, and tiers of service simply because they're out of scope; they're
network issues rather than Internetwork issues. An Internet isn't
neutral or non-neutral; if anything, it's neutral about neutrality.
The real rationale for the datagram network architecture was to
create a space for experimentation; that's why everybody embraced it as
soon as it was formulated. This internetting thing was actually a flop;
we actually have one big network made of self-similar parts, not a
bunch of different ones. Interconnection works best if everybody
runs all the same protocols, so we do. So when you ask the FCC and similar bodies in other
countries to regulate the Internet, they will happily take the task,
but they're simply going to fall back on their telephony models
because lawyers are addicted to precedent and nobody has given them a better
frame of reference. And once the regulators start making rules,
you're going to lose the little bit of dynamism that's still in the
Internet; how much technical progress has there been in the phone network
since the Carterfone rules went down? Not a hell of a lot. I don't
want the one big network frozen like a fly in amber just yet. Vint Cerf wrote: > Dave, > > I think some very serious effort is underway at FCC
to be much more > precise about what is meant and measurable about the
notion of > transparent and non-discriminatory service. I agree
that clarity is > important here. I think it is possible to
achieve clarity and that it > is important that we attempt this because to ignore
the problem space > is to leave the users very much at risk. > > vint > > On Sep 26, 2009, at 4:42 PM, David Farber wrote: > >> Vint, believe you misinterpret what I said
in writing and >> interviews. I have never said that regulation is
not good. What I >> have said is that hazy and ambiguous terms
that have been used on >> dangerous to innovation. Suppose you were
about to build a new >> building and the regulations said it should be
"reasonable", "open", >> "fair". An architect attempting to
design such a building would face >> a very confused task. You may have the
building mostly built and >> then find that your assumptions about what these
terms mean were >> wrong. You may face lawsuits by your neighbors
over what these terms >> mean as well as facing the need to sue the city
etc. >> >> The bane of many such regulations is that all it
does is to slow down >> innovation and create jobs for lawyers. >> >> I'd be happy to join a SMALL group which
attempted to create a set of >> principles and a framework for regulation which
avoided these pitfalls. >> >> Dave >> >> I have said often that leaving the future of the
Internet to the >> Congress is even more dangerous. Witness the 96
act and what it did >> to the CLECs. >> On Sep 26, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> I think Dave's position, which is largely unchanged,
is that >> regulation is never right. Plainly, I disagree
here and believe that >> it is entirely possible to establish a fair
framework in which it is >> not necessary for broadband service providers to
do anything more >> than manage congestion and allocation of
capacity in a fashion >> commensurate with the service level to which the
users have subscribed. >> >> vint >> >> On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:43 PM, Lauren Weinstein
an architect >>> >>> Dave Farber Warns Against Net Neutrality
(Washington Post) >>> >>> http://bit.ly/uAC2i (Washington Post) >>> >>> --Lauren-- >>> NNSquad Moderator >> >> >> > -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC |