[bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
David Cake
dave at difference.com.au
Mon Mar 9 03:42:35 EDT 2015
Is it just me, or does this just sound like a very mild generalisation of the idea of CDNs like Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)? A concept already in use by most large internet media providers?
It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the network neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is appropriate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers are heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations where some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to provide).
Cheers
David
On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should change from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two nodes at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stored in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurring at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses at the same time.
> Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of households not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere.
>
> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is referring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nathalie
>
> From: Gary Kenward <garykenward at ieee.org>
> To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
> Cc: internetpolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined neutrally
>
> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure you that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their primary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv).
>
> To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can deliver Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictures of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year old communications technology.
>
>
> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
>
> The information contained in this document is private and confidential. This document is not to
> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of the author.
>
> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>
>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about business models is this:
>>
>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decision change their view if they weren't for-profit companies?
>>
>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong opposition from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, and charging services for priority is another way to maximise return.
>>
>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>
>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run municipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's who's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and metering and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... About the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small number of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a national government.
>>>
>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-of-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in.
>>>
>>> Gary W Kenward wrote:
>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors.
>>>>
>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services were in Canada and Europe, and I haven’t seen anything that would suggest today’s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier services, particularly at the municipal level.
>>>>
>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competition laws.
>>>>
>>>> G
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.
>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC.
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net<mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's called municipal broadband.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad model.
>>>>>
>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-profit models for ISPs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com <mailto:veni at veni.com> <mailto:veni at veni.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and building our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was very high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we didn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . <ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com<mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> <mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of
>>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on
>>>>>>> their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes and
>>>>>>> for money when they received calls that they were unable to give
>>>>>>> informed consent to in advance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow
>>>>>>> these lines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic
>>>>>>> telecommunications services to include Internet and that the
>>>>>>> funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to maintain
>>>>>>> a common system. At a minimum, all American taxpayers already
>>>>>>> funding for the federal users of the Internet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, because
>>>>>>> the Internet serves them. I do have a problem with
>>>>>>> double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the
>>>>>>> communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and higher
>>>>>>> rates while selling access to a common system of communication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning and
>>>>>>> building the system are amortized away and the resulting high
>>>>>>> charges would just line the pockets of investors, service
>>>>>>> providers, and speculators without going to improve the
>>>>>>> infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming online.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of
>>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately
>>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more
>>>>>>> bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then the
>>>>>>> service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer funding
>>>>>>> and even a larger customer base for newly established private
>>>>>>> accounts on the improved infrastructure. This might even be
>>>>>>> considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW <http://www.qsl.net/ac5jw/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles
>>>>>>> Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new
>>>>>>> competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own
>>>>>>> content services.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard Hill wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the
>>>>>>> US because of the lack of competition in that country.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:*InternetPolicy
>>>>>>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On
>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Veni Markovski
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41
>>>>>>> *To:* Patrik Fältström
>>>>>>> *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be
>>>>>>> defined neutrally
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer more
>>>>>>> bandwidth - not last reason was because our competitors
>>>>>>> were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no
>>>>>>> real competition - you choose between the cable company
>>>>>>> (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). When
>>>>>>> I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, but
>>>>>>> turned out regulations are made in such a way that they
>>>>>>> don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this past
>>>>>>> week I saw a message that the government would allow the
>>>>>>> creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest as
>>>>>>> this will be unfair competition...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik Fältström
>>>>>>> <paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se><mailto:paf at frobbit.se>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>>>>>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com><javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the
>>>>>>> ISP court? I'd
>>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days.
>>>>>>> The explosion of
>>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in
>>>>>>> traffic which, if I was
>>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect
>>>>>>> them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not use
>>>>>>> more than 1Mbps, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example -
>>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during
>>>>>>> peak periods?
>>>>>>>> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-overall-us-internet-traffic/
>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. Customers
>>>>>>> want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again, the issue you point at is that users get
>>>>>>> 100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now uses
>>>>>>> 10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have
>>>>>>> increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not get
>>>>>>> more money. Simply because what the user uses is
>>>>>>> unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP
>>>>>>> actually have sold.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>> I am just explaining what I see the issue is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier did
>>>>>>> use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money
>>>>>>> from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is to
>>>>>>> Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their data
>>>>>>> centers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Patrik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Veni
>>>>>>> http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>
>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above
>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of
>>>>>>> any organizations, associated
>>>>>>> with or related to him in
>>>>>>> any given way.
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are
>>>>>>> caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the
>>>>>>> reason for using short words and phrases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account
>>>>>>> menu.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Veni
>>>>>>> http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>
>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above
>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of
>>>>>>> any organizations, associated
>>>>>>> with or related to him in
>>>>>>> any given way.
>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> == Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and phrases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
>> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
>> https://portal.isoc.org/
>> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150309/cd9fb33b/attachment.sig>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list