<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
McTim<br>
<br>
I am completely unable to understand why are accusing me of speaking
against edge caching, when i have not mentioned a word regarding it. In
fact, when Milton in his email dt 7th Jan asked if I was speaking
against edge catching, I specifically responded in my email dt 8th
that I was *not*. <br>
<br>
I have written at least 4-5 times in the last few days that I am *only*
speaking against price-differentiated QoS/ speed of transmission/
delivery of content, which in my view violates NN.<br>
<br>
I also asked you and Ralf specifically if you are for it or against it.
So I ask it again. (and pl do respond)<br>
<br>
Since you are likely to off-hand conclude that my statements do not
achieve your standards of technical discourse, I can re-frame my
question in the language of Prof Felten whose NN typology you yourself
forwarded to me (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality">http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality</a>
), which therefore I can expect you to understand. Pl indicate whether
you accept his 'flavour' 3 as an NN principle - which is 'Net
Neutrality as Content Nondiscrimination" - vis a vis his 'flavour' 2 -
which is '</font>Net Neutrality as Nonexclusionary Business Practices'<b>.</b>
(see the linked article for explanations.) <b><br>
<br>
</b>Now if this helps further understanding I may tell you that Milton
(and Lessig) supports 'flavour' or type 2 above as constituting NN, but
is against type 3 (Milton, you can pl confirm this.) I dont think I
can be clearer than this. <font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
<br>
> </font>It does no such thing. If "she" chooses to use a website,
then that website is delivered via the best effort Internet.
<br>
<br>
Perfect. I am just asking for that to be ensured. However Milton and
Lessig say that it is ok, if the website she chooses doesn't pay for
higher QoS and another one does, her preferred website is *not*
delivered via 'best effort' but via via second or third or n-th "best
effort", which can actually be so low in the stack to be - absolutely
or relatively - quite a bad effort.<br>
<br>
I can though judge that you got confused by a quick - and, habitually,
dismissive - reading of the following sentence I wrote <br>
<br>
" Now, if some content providersare able to pay and line their content
up closer to the user relative to other content, without her exercise
of such a choice, it obviously constraints her freedom and choice."<br>
<br>
This is not at all about edge caching. Please read it in the specific
context I have built, of the picture of Internet as a democratic media.
It is meant somewhat figuratively, as content which is pushed harder at
the user through higher-price better-QoS than the rest of the content
she receives. I wrote the above sentence after I drew a picture of the
Internet where one is assured *equal relationship to* all the content
present on the Internet and whereby how price-differentiated QoS
violates this equality of relationship. It is this sense I meant
higher QoS content as being pushed harder at the user, and spoke of it
figuratively as lined closer to the user, *relegating the rest of the
content*. It is in this way that the user's free choice is constrained.
<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:f65fb55e0901120615h158b9155q118b0eb2c4e22d95@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Parminder,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Milton
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Your turn. Please tell me, how does the ordinary user benefit from an
egalitarian ideologue telling them and everyone else that if they want to
pay more for a higher speed >or better service they can't do it, even if it
is offered on a nondiscriminatory basis?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">That is closer to a real honest discussion. I will deal with the 'red
herrings' in your email later, below.
I see Internet's primary value and its basic characteristic, as a
revolutionary democratic media, in the fact that unlike say interactive
cable TV it can accommodate unlimited content, in a manner that all of it
is accessible to the user at exactly the same level and ease, which puts the
control and choice of what she wants to access completely in the user's
hand. However, if one can pay to push ones content extra hard at the user,
at the cost of other competing content, it compromises user's choice, and
thus harms her interests. In case of traditional media platforms, like print
or TV, where the interface-space is constrained, some way needs to be found
to squeeze some content in this limited space rather than the other.
However, the essential and the defining feature of the Internet is that
there is no such constraint of how much and what all content one can access
at the same one-remove, at the same level. This is how the Internet
fundamentally revolutionizes users choice. Now, if some content providers
are able to pay and line their content up closer to the user relative to
other content, without her exercise of such a choice, it obviously
constraints her freedom and choice.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Now that's just silly. If someone (Akamai/Google/Yahoo) were to
deploy an edge cache here in Kampala that would merely give the
enduser a better experience, it would NOT mean that the enduser would
be unable to choose to view content NOT available from that cache.
Number of hops to a CDN (or webserver of any kind) has nothing to do
with a network operator discriminating against a content provider that
may offer competing content to that of the network operator (which is
what you are against, I think).
And, consequently, it turns the basic
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">logic of the Internet on its head.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
no, it IS the basic logic of the Internet. User types in a url, DNS
resolves it, web page requested by browser, web page delivered over x
networks. making x a smaller number is good for everyone.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I am not able to see what benefit it gives to the user, to put some content
closer to her than other, in a way that has *not* been chosen by her. Can
you please tell me what benefit the user gets?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well as a development issue, if "she" is in most of the developing
world it brings "her' up to par with users in NA, the EU and other
well connected parts of the world.
Would you rather have this:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">tracert google.com
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Tracing route to google.com [209.85.171.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 278 ms 29 ms 29 ms 41.220.7.161
2 14 ms 12 ms 16 ms 41.220.2.65
3 117 ms 30 ms 16 ms 217-212-242-45.customer.telia.com
[217.212.242.45]
4 39 ms 54 ms 18 ms 41.220.12.225
5 66 ms 19 ms 36 ms 41.220.12.41
6 161 ms 33 ms 23 ms 41.220.12.49
7 220 ms 64 ms 18 ms if-ctu-edge-ci.data.co.ug [41.220.12.33]
8 47 ms 29 ms 27 ms 196.0.0.37
9 89 ms 34 ms 69 ms 196.0.0.213
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 688 ms 702 ms 707 ms 213.255.197.237
12 751 ms 716 ms 889 ms hsrp.gw.sky-vision.net [217.194.158.17]
13 832 ms 725 ms 710 ms GI0-1.gw1.dcm.sky-vision.net [213.255.203.1]
14 661 ms 680 ms 660 ms PO2-0.gw2.nyc.sky-vision.net [213.255.219.38]
15 * * * Request timed out.
16 1260 ms 760 ms * 209.85.255.68
17 720 ms 952 ms 724 ms 216.239.46.227
18 745 ms 756 ms 708 ms 72.14.232.141
19 812 ms 737 ms 779 ms 209.85.243.117
20 783 ms 752 ms 819 ms 209.85.248.129
21 * 945 ms * 216.239.46.200
22 880 ms 818 ms 755 ms 64.233.174.97
23 758 ms 757 ms 803 ms 209.85.251.153
24 * 806 ms 850 ms 74.125.31.2
25 771 ms 774 ms 807 ms cg-in-f100.google.com [209.85.171.100]
Trace complete.
OR something more like this:
Tracing route to google.com [209.85.171.100]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 278 ms 29 ms 29 ms 41.220.7.161
2 14 ms 12 ms 16 ms 41.220.2.65
3 117 ms 30 ms 16 ms 217-212-242-45.customer.telia.com
[217.212.242.45]
4 39 ms 54 ms 18 ms 41.220.12.225
5 66 ms 19 ms 36 ms 41.220.12.41
6 161 ms 33 ms 23 ms 41.220.12.49
7 220 ms 64 ms 18 ms if-ctu-edge-ci.data.co.ug [41.220.12.33]
8 47 ms 29 ms 27 ms 196.0.0.37
9 771 ms 774 ms 807 ms cg-in-f100.google.com [209.85.171.100]
Would you rather people in the developing world have higher latency
relative to folks in the more developed bits of the planet?
Would you rather end users have this:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping google.com
Pinging google.com [209.85.171.100] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=718ms TTL=232
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=814ms TTL=232
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=770ms TTL=232
Reply from 209.85.171.100: bytes=32 time=724ms TTL=232
Ping statistics for 209.85.171.100:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 718ms, Maximum = 814ms, Average = 756ms
or something like this (where it is likely a Google cache will be
deployed soon):
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>ping mtn.co.ug
Pinging mtn.co.ug [212.88.97.22] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=134ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=121
Reply from 212.88.97.22: bytes=32 time=49ms TTL=121
Ping statistics for 212.88.97.22:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 46ms, Maximum = 134ms, Average = 70ms
The loss, on the other hand,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her choice.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It does no such thing. If "she" chooses to use a website, then that
website is delivered via the best effort Internet. If she happens to
choose a website that is cached locally, the website is delivered via
the best effort Internet, only in fewer hops, and therefore "she" has
a better user experience.
This was discussed at length at the UG and EA IGFs as an African IG
issue. We WANT more edge and local caches. Our brothers in Nairobi
have root server instances, an Akamai server AND a Google cache. That
means that the networks connected to them ALL have access to cached
content, which gives users better experiences, but also saves them
money, as the content is only downloaded to EAfrica once and
distributed from there to users. This brings the cost of connectivity
down for all.
In your quest for some brand of egalitarianism, you have actually
taken a deeply anti-development stance on this issue.
<pissing match twixt you and Milton snipped>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>