NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services
As I keep saying -- you can build your own QoS network. But I object being forced to pay for it. I also don't want to suffer when companies like Verizon use protocols that are brittle because of an unnecessary dependence on QoS. As I keep saying today's telepresence systems like VoIP do not and cannot depend on QoS if they are to be widely available. Let's not confuse bad engineering with a requirement. -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Richard Bennett Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 13:23 To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services It comes down to a question of whether Internet services are required to be best efforts only; there are obviously many applications that a best efforts, edge-managed system can't support, so the advanced services loophole is a way to enable them to get done. The neutrality lobby tends to demand no QoS management on the Internet, so what else is a poor innovator to do but bypass the Internet when he needs QoS? That's what the TelePresence-type systems do today. RB On 8/27/2010 9:51 AM, George Ou wrote: > > The most extreme form of Net Neutrality > <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/the-three-extreme-forms-of-net- > neutrality/> advocates taking private property used for delivering > non-Internet services and mandating that it be used for Internet > capacity. I know Bob would love to see this and he has no respect for > private property which he like others mistakenly believes is public > property > <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/techdirt-mistakens-broadband-fo > r-public-property/>, > but it has no legal foundation. > > The Verizon-Google compromise sort of defends the right to enhanced or > prioritized services so long as they're not called "Internet". That > upsets the people that want to mandate equal service regardless of > payment even though the Internet has always been equal service for > equal payment. > > George Ou > > *From:* nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] *On > Behalf Of *Bob Frankston > *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 9:09 AM > *To:* 'Ellrod, Rick E.'; nnsquad@nnsquad.org > *Subject:* [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services > > Yes. > > What more can I say â?" it protects the current business model against > the danger of being undercut by their most feared competition â?" > users with lots of bits. > > We see a form of this in today's story about NECN "NECN HD a tough > sell for Comcast > <http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/08/27/comcast_rivals_slow_to_pick_up_necn_hd/>" > Why not just make NECN, which is advertising sponsored, available over > the top. > > Charter spokesman Tom Cohan said: "As Charter deploys new technologies > that allows us to use our bandwidth more effectively, we are adding HD > channels. NECN is certainly one of a number of channels that is under > consideration for future carriage in HD > > At least FiOS says they plan to add it but we're talking about a > signal that is broadcast from my city not that far from my house. Yet > I can't get over the abundant local capacity all around me with 3+ > broadbands [sic]. I have to wait for FiOS to add it. You can argue > whatever business model reasons you want but in the end I don't get to > choose what I can watch. I have to accept what Verizon decides is in > their interest. They don't want to risk a real marketplace where they > don't have control. > > If this weren't bad enough I have to call FiOS support to find out why > the signal on 690 (Comedy Central HD) is coming in so badly. I've got > an IP connection with my VoD coming over IP over my Ethernet to my > STB. Why is Verizon setting aside the bulk of their fiber the cable in > my house that they poached from Comcast (who really owns the RG-6 > Comcast installed?) for an analog signal when they could do it far > better over IP? That's not the only problem with FiOS insistence on > pretending it's 1950; even over IP they use brittle protocols that > live by and thus die by QoS. > > So, yes yes yes. It's all about maintaining a business model even as > the technology as left it behind. > > *From:* nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org > [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] *On > Behalf Of *Ellrod, Rick E. > *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 09:33 > *To:* nnsquad@nnsquad.org > *Subject:* [ NNSquad ] Additional or differentiated services > > I wonder whether Verizon's principal purpose in introducing this > qualification might be to protect the current model (used, for > example, in FiOS) under which cable service and Internet access are > two distinct services, with traditional multichannel video delivery > not subject to the kinds of conditions net neutrality would require > for Internet traffic. > > Some commenters have seemed to assume net neutrality would > automatically mean that the traditional cable product would have to be > subsumed under Internet access, so that "over-the-top" Internet video > could compete on a head-to-head basis with cable operator-delivered > multichannel video. The exception in the Verizon-Google proposal might > be designed to prevent such arguments, not for some hypothetical > future service, but for current cable service. > > Rick Ellrod > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lauren Weinstein [mailto:lauren@vortex.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:40 PM > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org <mailto:nnsquad@nnsquad.org> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Google, Verizon, and Getting Real > > Google, Verizon, and Getting Real > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000749.html > > Greetings. Reactions to the "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework > Proposal" ( http://bit.ly/9EEEy7 [Lauren's Blog] ) have been > splattering around the globe ever since the two firms announced the > plan earlier this month ( http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public Policy > Blog] ). > > . . . > > Nor is it clear what sorts of services would qualify for the > "additional or differentiated services" offerings (that is, not part > of the public Internet per se) proposed by the framework plan. > > Verizon's CEO, during the conference call announcing the proposal, > specifically mentioned "entertainment services" and 3D television -- > but these seem among the more problematic examples -- especially given > the rapid advances in video encoding technologies (including related > to 3D). > > . . . > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com <mailto:lauren@vortex.com>) > http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 > Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): > http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): > http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for > Transparent Internet Performance): > > http://www.gctip.org > Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on > Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein > Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz > -- Richard Bennett Senior Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC