NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services
This may be a stupid question, but I can't come up with an answer, so here goes. Are there really applications that can't be supported by the best-effort internet? Wasn't one of the foundational principles of ARPANET development that the network would be treated as unreliable, and that the endpoints would compensate for this? I just find it odd that, for example, VoIP grew up as a stable alternative technology built on top of an unreliable network, and now that phone companies are starting using VoIP in place of POTS, they're arguing that they need a reliable network to run it on. -Peter On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> wrote: > 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-for-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 – it protects the current business model against the >> danger of being undercut by their most feared competition – 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 > > -- Peter Sahlstrom peter@stormlash.net http://peter.stormlash.net