NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality"
1) Confusing RFCs that are explicitly "informational only" with IETF standards is sloppy and not recommended. 2) Dan Bricklin's essay: "Why We Don't Need QOS: Trains, Cars, and Internet Quality of Service" is still very good reading: http://bit.ly/bL1W1J (Dan Bricklin's Web Site) My own view is that there may be some role for carefully crafted QoS -- but that a) it's critical that it not be capable of being unfairly "gamed" - b) its use should be as limited as possible - c) if used at all, it should generally apply equally to all traffic of the same class - d) you should not be able to "buy" higher priority for arbitrary data across the public Internet - and e) I'd much prefer to see bandwidth capacity increases avoid the need for QoS at all. Note that QoS under these terms does not make it impossible (in theory, anyway) to associate a higher class of service for designated real-time public safety data, but would (thankfully) make it difficult to buy high priority for spam. But again, the Internet user community overall is best served by increases in bandwidth that potentially benefit everyone. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - On 08/14 00:42, George Ou wrote: > Acceptance by who? RFC 2475 says: > > "Service differentiation is desired to accommodate heterogeneous application > requirements and user expectations, and to permit differentiated pricing of > Internet service." > > Furthermore, this is already an accepted practice on the Internet. ISPs > like TeliaSonera already sell access to Blizzard with enhanced priority. > Business connections routinely have enhanced priority. Global Crossing > sells enhanced priority to business customers and they even extend that > priority to partner networks in Asia and this has been happening for a while > now. Who is Google or anyone to say this is wrong? > > > The FCC's NPRM proposal bans charges for "enhanced or prioritized" access to > content/application/service providers and that is a pretty broad paint > brush. That potentially outlaws a number of beneficial models I outlined > here > http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/01/preserving-the-open-and-competitive-ba > ndwidth-market/. > > If you're a content provider, why are you no longer a "business"? > > Furthermore, a ban on Paid Peering harms smaller websites that can't build > their own infrastructure and negotiate free peering. Is it a coincidence > that this harms Google's competitors? Wait, I thought Google cared about > the "two guys in a garage"? Oh wait, that was just lip service and Google > actually doesn't care. > http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/the-hypocrisy-of-google-and-skype/. > > > Lastly, Net Neutrality doesn't even allow for user-approved prioritization. > If a user explicitly gives an ISP permission to prioritize a particular > website or a general class of applications, who are you or anyone else to > say no? Would you suggest that user isn't smart enough to know what's good > for himself or herself? As far as I'm concerned, a user should be allowed > to discriminate in favor of content he/she likes or against content they > don't care about when it comes to their own broadband service. They should > be allowed to implement this discrimination themselves or authorize someone > else (like the ISP) to do it for them. > > > > George Ou > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 6:59 PM > To: George Ou > Cc: Lauren Weinstein; nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet > neutrality" > > George, > > I think that there is acceptance that charging more for more capacity > (bits/sec) but that differential charging for priority, regardless of > the type of traffic (eg real time, low delay or file transfer, or > ...), could lead to anti-competitive consequences in which established > competitors might prevent new competitors from gaining adequate access > simply by consuming available capacity at high priority to squeeze out > the competition. > > vint > > > > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:47 PM, George Ou <george_ou@lanarchitect.net> > wrote: > > "You pay your service provider a fixed charge, and it mostly keeps no eye > on > > who you connect to, or who connects to you. In a non-neutral world, the > ISP > > could block your access to a popular website until you paid an extra fee > > (like extra satellite or cable channels)" > > > > That is clearly a clueless and misleading statement for anyone that's even > > semi up to date on the actual policy debate. The FCC's net neutrality > > proposal actually doesn't prohibit broadband providers for charging > > customers for higher priority; it prohibits broadband providers from > > offering "enhanced or prioritized" services to content/app/service > providers > > on a truly voluntary basis. That's the real sticking point that many > > reasonable people have a problem with. > > > > > > > > George > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org > > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf > Of > > Lauren Weinstein > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 AM > > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet > neutrality" > > > > > > Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality" > > > > http://bit.ly/bm2rw7 (Irish Times) > > > > --Lauren-- > > NNSquad Moderator > > > > >