NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: [IP] VZ Google Announcement worth reading -- and worth challenging
The problem is the word "Broadband". What does it mean? It's a word that lack sufficient specificity to define policy. It simply makes the semantic baggage of the distant past the framing. I see “broadband” as a term for a business model in which you fund infrastructure by selling services. If people get enough bits they can do their own services and you lose service revenue but you don't make it up in bit revenue because, as with milk, with too many bits price drops below cost. And bits aren’t even consumed. It’s very simple. Broadband is the problem not the solution. Engineering expertise is necessary but not sufficient because it's the definition of the problem that's at issue. Once you've accepted the idea of broadband the game is over. As I’ve noted on this list, when I was at Microsoft I decoupled the home network from the telecom business model by making it DIY and thwarting practices such as a monthly fee each device. In doing so I played a key role in making “broadband” what it is today. Can I get a chance to explain to the group how and why it worked it turned out so well and why today’s broadband is at odds with “more Internet? We must remember that the Internet was, in part, designed to work around the restrictions of telecom. I worry that we are treating these work-arounds as necessary architecture and missing the point of the Internet. No need to repeat what I've said in: · http://rmf.vc/?n=BroadbandInternet – the problem with “broadband” as a framing. · http://rmf.vc/?N=Unbaked – understanding why we shouldn’t bake in current assumptions and management practices. That seems to be what’s happening with the incumbents (and Google, as a CDN, is an incumbent) are doing. · http://rmf.vc/?N=NNManagementNot –problems with handing our future to network managers. · http://rmf.vc/?n=AssuringScarcity – why the current business model (in this particular case cellular) must limit the capacity in order to sustain the business model. · http://rmf.vc/?n=UAC – Ambient Connectivity as a new paradigm Etc. Where do we get the great engineering that challenges the statement of the problem rather than meekly taking orders? -----Original Message----- Begin forwarded message: From: "Hoewing, C. L." <c.l.hoewing@verizon.com> Date: August 16, 2010 1:41:50 PM EDT To: "'dave@farber.net'" <dave@farber.net>, ip <ip@listbox.com> Subject: RE: [IP] Re: VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Good points and for the record, I agree that there is a very strong need for engineering input. That is why, as Dave and others know, we have been working for some time to create the Broadband Internet Technology Advisory Group, a group of engineers - not lawyers or policy folks - from across the Internet ecosystem including software, hardware, applications and network companies as well as academics and advocates who will join together to review and examine technology and engineering issues that affect way the Internet works. It is not supposed to be a standards body but rather a means for Internet technologists and engineers to get together regularly to examine emerging issues concerning the Internet's operations, especially issues affecting how it delivers content, how congestion issues are handled and so on. It will be very transparent in what it does, will provide regular reports on its meetings and studies, and will also provide advice on best practices. In addition, it will provide a place for regulators and policy leaders to go in order to get advice on technology issues that all too often can blow up into policy disputes needlessly. This press release recently released provides more information. LINK Link Hoewing Vice President Internet and Technology Policy Verizon 1300 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-515-2420 |