NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: [IP] The myth of title ii reclassification
My bell labs engineering phd witnesses would be just as annoyed as Bob. I should have said packet based and nothing further. I will lwave the rest of the technical refinements to Bob as they have no bearing on my basic points. On 04/15/2010, Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com> wrote: > I want to be clarify one point that Erik made. SS7 is not IP. What is true > is that SS7 and IP have similar roles in being the basis for two approaches. > They both use packets but very differently. > > > > SS7 is the defining protocols for the "Intelligent" telecom network. It's > concerned with assuring that the appropriate resources are available and > sets up a voice circuit. (There are also other services but I want to keep > things simple). The is designed to carefully manage scarce recourses. If the > resources are not available you get a circuit busy signal. This is QoS - > quality or nothing. > > > > IP is a very different concept. It is about best efforts packet delivery. No > promises - if you want a voice call give it a try and if you're lucky it > works. We get confused because given sufficient quantity we have enough > packets available so we can act as if it's a guarantee. This is reasonable > because the SS7 guarantee is hedged - there can still be failures and the > voice path may have segments not under control as with analog and shared > segments. > > > > Most of the technical description is premised on the SS7 and that's the > world of the FCC regulations. > > > > IP is very different. Concepts like out-of-bound might exist in some > protocols but are not fundamental. Packets are just packets. Since the > application and meanings are outside the network they don't really fit into > the telecom model. Hence all the machinations in trying to fit a protocol > where packets have no intrinsic meaning and no guarantees into the telecom > model in which all the meaning and roles are defined in the network. > > > > There is severe cognitive dissonance. And plenty of billable hours for > lawyers. I can't comment on the title stuff. It has nothing to do with IP > per se - it's all about pretending nothing has changed when everything has. > > > > From: oia-bounces@lists.bway.net [mailto:oia-bounces@lists.bway.net] On > Behalf Of Erik Cecil > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 14:39 > To: Alexander Goldman > Cc: OIA List > Subject: Re: [OIA] Fwd: [IP] The myth of title ii reclassification > > > > There's a ton of network engineers in this business who play lawyer; it is > as dangerous as lawyers playing network engineers. What I find, as a > lawyer, is (a) generally lawyers will concede network engineering issues - > that's the great thing about cross examining engineers, even trained AT&T > "engineer" professional witnesses - they will, eventually, tell the truth > (but it takes a long time); economists, generally, are not worth the trouble > of cross examination; and (b) engineers, particularly in the policy wonk > arena, tend to have extremely strong opinions of what the law means. They > really have trouble grasping the fact that the law of the law is knowing > that (a) everything is relative; and (b) the real law is knowing which > details matter. It makes them bonkers to think that the law, particularly > regulatory law, is stuff we make up as we go along. This can be frustrating > for everyone - lawyers included - but you have to be Zen about it b/c > regulators (and incumbents), and pretty much everyone at some level or > another, make up law all the time. That this occurs is not a bad thing, but > there is such a thing as balance. I wrote that post in order to demonstrate > the scope and depth of present imbalances, and thus, the futility of > incrementalism. > > > Erik J. Cecil, Esq. > SourceLaw, PC > > **************** > The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a > thousandfold. - Aristotle > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Alexander Goldman <agoldmanster@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I called Ou a network engineer who has no understanding of RF on the > wispa.org website. That's my opinion. Like myself, I think he's trying to > get out of journalism. Unlike me, he does have a network engineering > background -- but not a recent network engineering background. > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Erik Cecil <erik.cecil@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think Ou completely misses the point. Here's my take: The Myth of the > Myth of Title II Reclassification: > http://www.erikcecil.com/2010/04/myth-of-myth-of-title-ii.html. My point is > largely the same as Mark Cooper has made in other places: the framing of > this entire debate is skewed. In fairness to Mark, I think my points go a > little deeper and touch more broadly than where he thinks things should be. > > > > Long story short, Bob Frankston is about 1/2 right. The framing is screwed. > I pick up where all of you seem to run right into impasse: squaring the > framing problems with the daily operations and money of these networks, > which is where I earn and have earned my daily bread for the past 15 years. > > > > > Here's the text of the piece if you want to engage the details: > > > > Well, finally, the telecom name game hits the big time. Having cross > examined no end of Bell company witnesses, I'll examine George Ou's > apparently pro-ILEC spin by juxtaposing his apparent "analysis" against the > whole of the Internet. (I say "pro-ILEC" (aka pro-Bellco) because it appears > Digital Society is a half-way house for Progress and Freedom Foundation (who > routinely supports "deregulation" of the AT&T and Verizon variety) judging > by their personnel: http://www.digitalsociety.org/about/) > > Ou takes issue with the proposition the FCC should regulate the transport > components of the Internet in a short article entitled > <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-title-ii-reclassification > /> "The Myth of Title II `reclassification'". He refers to some FCC orders > without naming them and then sets up and proves a straw man argument. > Setting aside a certain lack of legal depth, his analysis also fails to > account for industry history, evolution of the networks, interconnection > arrangements (uh, across every platform - cable, wireless, wireline, > satellite, and so on), tariffs, facilities, towers, or money behind them, > much less the practicalities of actually running these business or > litigating the cases he seems to cite with such confidence. Rather than dive > into briefing this - b/c thorough treatment would require briefing, why > don't we just examine the facts. Secondly, he was a network engineer, now > reporter, not a lawyer. So to keep this fair, I'll take off my lawyer hat - > and go right into the deep end of the network stuff to illustrate how, on > the facts alone, this kind of reasoning is ludicrous. > > First, let's not get lost in the name game: > > If we run it to the lowest common denominator - the signals travelling > across coaxial cable, hybrid coax, copper, fiber optic, TDM, mobile > wireless, fixed wireless, handsets of every stripe, CDMA, GSM, LTE, 4G, > satellite, class V switches, class VI switches, cable head ends, CDNs, etc. > - we know that electronic communications networks - however labeled > (Internet, Public Switched Network, cable, broadcast, etc.) involve people > using computers to communicate with each other. Computers process > "information". Information, to a computer, exists in one of two states: on > or off. Your 2 gigahertz computer processor, for example, is a switch that > essentially turns on or off 2 billion times per second. So it all boils down > to 010010001010100101010101010s (and programming and money, but hey, let's > see what's really going on underneath the name game). > > Setting aside gaping holes in the applicable legal history, which, again, we > don't need to address here as the facts, I think, are delicious, let's just > see how that plays out against all of the "transport" and "information" > distinctions the article asserts are so utterly clear. > > * Some of the 010101010110110101s are "transport" and some of the > 010101011101010101101s are "information" because some of the > 010111010010101s ride "on top of" some of the other 101010101011011s. > * Some of the 010101011010101s are "out of band" but part of > "telecommunications" (SS7 is an IP network), but not exempted from Title II, > but not quite Title II either (some tariffed SS7, others didn't tariff SS7; > no one could decide). > * Others 0101010101s through the air and are "local" (and no subject > to state regulation) more often than ones that go through copper or coax, > which are also "local" but subject to state regulation (and pricing inputs > that on average are 20x higher than those that apply when they go through > the air). This only happens, however, when those 01010101011s are "voice"; > if not, then other rules may (or may not) apply, as demonstrated with > pellucid clarity below. > * Yet other 01010101001010s are on copper or coax but are not > telecommunications (because not only to they ride over, but are "combined > with" some 1010101010101110101s beneath them that results in the copper > being not regulated). But, if you happen to be a 10101010101010 that is > associated with "voice", you are subject to regulation (under Title I), > including but not limited to USF and 911, when your 101010101010s ride > "over" other 101010101s that were already combined with the lower layer > 1010000010101s that resulted in the deregulated copper in the first place. > This is entirely different than the problem mentioned above where certain > 0101010101s were subject or not subject to state regulation when they > carried voice. In this case the 1010101s were in "IP" format. Above, they > were in CDMA or GSM (or LTE or 4G) or TDM or DOCSIS, but not necessarily in > IP, though they might have been IP at some point, however, so long as it was > something other than IP at the endpoints, the rules cited above would apply, > not the rules referenced in the 10010101s mentioned in this paragraph. > * The preceding paragraph was probably confusing; I'll clarify: > 00101010110011s that originate in a form of 01010101011s known as time > division multiplexing, are converted to other 0101010s that are known as IP, > then back to 10110101011s known as time division multiplexing are regulated. > This would also more or less be true if CDMA or GSM were on both ends, but > no one has really fought that legal battle because the financial rules that > apply to 0101010101s carrying voice to your CDMA, GSM, 4G or LTE handset are > subject to financial rules (known as "intercarrier compensation") that make > it silly to fight over whether or not the 1010101s really actually truly > "originated" and "terminated" in something other than IP. The real battle > over 101010101110s that ride inside of 1010101010 formatting known as CDMA, > GSM, 4G or LTE comes not for rating reasons, but because either the handset > vendor (e.g. Apple) or the entity that provides the CDMA, GSM, 4G or LTE > signal (wireless "carrier") wants to prevent you, consumer, from using the > Internet to carry some of your 1010100101 voice signals via cheaper > providers available on the Internet. > > We're not done yet; it gets better: > > * Certain 1010100101s ride inside waves, but only in one direction. > They are neither telecom nor information service because they carry video > and go only in one direction. > * Other 10101010101s ride inside waves, generally in one direction > (subject to error checking). They are not broadcast, could be telecom but > are information service as they are inside of fiber optic glass, carry > video, but come from web servers not broadcast studios. > > Secondly, let's just take one real world example: > > Somehow the incumbents, and apparently Mr. Ou say Title II never applied to > the "Internet". Well maybe ... they are hyper-technically correct. But, > again, to avoid confusion, recall that certain special rules apply to > certain 1010101s that carry voice information. Sometimes people use the > Internet to communicate by voice. Sometimes they talk to other people who > use computers to connect to the Internet. Sometimes, however, their friends > are away from their computers. So they call the telephones. In that case > 1010010101s go from a computer to other computers that "convert" the > 10101010s from IP to other formats - whether TDM, CDMA, GSM, etc. In some > cases the 101010101s from your computer will have other numbers associated > with them - a telephone number - let's say you buy Vonage in Washington, DC > (202 area code). You move to San Francisco (415 area code). You take your > vonage phone with you. You call your grandmother, across the street. Your > grandmother buys old fashioned telephone service from AT&T. You buy DSL > service from AT&T. AT&T will charge the carrier who takes your 101010101s > from the "Internet" (IP format) and converts those to 101010101s that can > talk to it's old fashioned telephone switches (TDM format - this is old > copper landline) "long distance" fees. But you can only charge "long > distance" if you apply a tariff (tariffs are creatures of Title II) to that > call. > > The money in these charges is several tens of billions of dollars per year. > AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, Windstream, Embarq now CenturyLink, etc. has sued all > kinds of carriers who convert 1010101s from IP format to 01010101s in TDM > format to connect with their old fashioned switches and won hundreds of > millions of dollars. At the same time these carriers use IP in their > backbones, deploy all sorts of IP-enabled gear, but use their old TDM > operations as cash registers to clean out everyone but themselves. Go > figure. > > So of course Title II has never been applied to the Internet. > "Reclassification is a myth." OK. Sure. Clear as day. > > Fortunately for us, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Windstream, CenturyLink, and > apparently the good people at Digital Society, want to keep the system just > the way it is right now. Mmmmm. Glad the "free market" guys are completely > in alignment with all of the "free market" incumbents who want to make sure > that selective deregulation stays in place. > > > > > Erik J. Cecil, Esq. > SourceLaw, PC > > **************** > The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a > thousandfold. - Aristotle > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote: > > It's good to see Ou delineating the difference between the service and the > infrastucture. The agenda swings this way, eh? > > j > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Dave Farber <dfarber@me.com> > Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:18 PM > Subject: [IP] The myth of title ii reclassification > To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> > > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: George Ou <George.Ou@digitalsociety.org> > Date: April 14, 2010 8:42:51 PM EDT > To: "dave@farber.net" <dave@farber.net>, Lauren Weinstein > <lauren@vortex.com> > Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>, > Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com> > Subject: For your respective lists if you wish > > The myth of Title II > <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-title-ii-reclassification > /> 'reclassification' > > Is Title II reclassification really the silver bullet that the Open Internet > Coalition and others say it is? When we ppp the actual history of Title II > classification with regard to broadband, we see that it only applies to the > transport infrastructure and never the Internet service riding on top of it. > > > > > > > > George Ou > www.DigitalSociety.org <http://www.digitalsociety.org/> > > > > > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> Archives > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> Error! Filename not > specified. > > <http://www.listbox.com> Error! Filename not specified. > > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Open Infrastructure Alliance > http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Open Infrastructure Alliance > http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia > > > > > > -- > WiNOG Grants Cooperative: http://www.winog.org/ > > Internet Statistics blog: http://net-statistics.net/wordpress > > _______________________________________________ > Open Infrastructure Alliance > http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device Erik J. Cecil, Esq. SourceLaw, PC **************** The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold. - Aristotle