NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services (QoS as an expensive option)
(I can understand George's frustration (http://www.nnsquad.org/archives/nnsquad/msg04160.html) and in resorting the ad homimen rants when the facts fail to support his arguments but I ask him to please stop because it reflects badly on him and makes it difficult to have a rational discussion.) The QoS issue is subtle. This is why refer to best efforts as a constraint because it's very easy to decide you must have QoS in order to do a task. It's only when you are forced to that you get creative but the key is that you are not solving the problem as stated. For example you may have test gear that assures that you preserve the exact sound waves but what is needed for a phone conversation is the ability to understand what the other person is saying which is very different. MP3(r) is an example of this in using an acoustic model to determine how it can compress music. Thus a VoIP stream can be lower quality by some measures but sound better or it can be far less expensive and still be acceptable. What is important is that you get to make the tradeoffs. What is confusing is that, in practice, the quality is often far better than the traditional telephony because QoS is an upper bound more than it is a lower bound so we assume there is QoS. But you can't get more than 56Kbps with the US phone system and you often get far less. QoS came from an attempt to see how little you can get away with not to see how much quality you can provide. The danger of QoS comes in depending on QoS. Thus if you assume you have a certain QoS along the path, such as 56Kbps and depend on it you'll get dropouts and failures if you get less quality. In practice for voice service the analog systems degrade smoothly. Not so digital systems. This is why my VoD IP-based video from Verizon's FiOS degrades ungracefully. This is also true for their channel 0690 which has digital rather than analog decoding problems. The other point is the we find solutions that correspond to what is available. If we have very inexpensive best efforts path and an expensive QoS path then the innovation will tend to go where there is least resistance and you discover that you don't really need to pay extra for the QoS path. That's why the PSTN is migrating to IP. This is also why it is more than naïve to talk about "end-to-end cargo cult advocates" as George does. That's imply ignorance. QoS is always an option but it may be a very expensive option because you need to control or own the entire path. It's the market not any doctrine that has made QoS-dependency the exception and made it so expensive. So to answer Peter's question it's not so much whether QoS is required but whether it is required to be required and the answer to for that is that it is rarely required and those who choose dependency should bear the costs and let the rest of us get the advantages of best efforts. The surprise is that by accepting that constraint we've become stronger and escape from QoS as an upper bound. (see http://rmf.vc/?n=IPPvD and http://rmf.vc/?n=UAC#BestEfforts for a more extended discussion). -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Peter Sahlstrom Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 13:57 To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ 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-f >> or-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 > > -- Peter Sahlstrom peter@stormlash.net http://peter.stormlash.net