[governance] Net Neutrality

[Danny Butt]

Hi Phil

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I agree with you that VoIP is a poor  
rationale for QoS, and probably a poor example, though that may not  
be the case once videoconf picks up a bit?

On the other hand, I understand from ISPs here that video/ 
entertainment is by far the largest consumer of bandwidth, and this  
is supported by the figures at e.g. <http://www.ams-ix.net/news/>   
(see the data on data June 06). If that's true, it only makes sense  
to use other entertainment business models for reference, seeing as  
this is the primary use of the resource, even if not the most critical.

The question for me is how to then define the public interest issues  
within that context, and I think that's a sociopolitical rather than  
technical question as Parminder suggests.

Best

Danny


On 01/09/2006, at 10:30 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 05:49:14PM +0530, Parminder wrote:
>>
>> Many technologists at first did not engage with public policy at  
>> all, and
>> now when some dangers of such a position are very evident, they  
>> are ready to
>> engage with it only in terms of some technical principles. And NN  
>> is a
>> technical principle, and it may in some situations serve public  
>> interest and
>> at other times it may not.
>
> Well, as far as analogies go, why not look at the bridge / toll
> systems instead of the gaming console one (credit to one of my
> acquaintances):
>
> You build and operate a large toll for an 8 lane bridge.  Now you're
> going to have the basic differentiated services: cars pay 5 bucks,
> trucks 20 (adjust to your currency / barter animal).  Fair enough,
> trucks fill the road more, and use up the pavement more, etc...
>
> On top of that, you're against Road Neutrality.  And you want to
> make an extra buck.  So you start to single out Walmart trucks.
> "You guys are the biggest users of this bridge, you got tons of
> trucks from all over the country crossing this bridge, so I'm going
> to invoice Walmart.  And if they don't pay, I'll just have have to
> park you guys into a waiting area, and wait until a clear spot, say
> 1 mile long, shows up on a lane, and then I'll send you through.
> And it doesn't matter which freight company Walmart uses, it's my
> bridge, you pay extra".
>
> This is typical telco behaviour.  Their revenues got spanked by
> VoIP, and while it's not been proven that they downright will
> downprioritize SIP and RTSP (or outright block it, as some Wimax
> providers have done here in Denmark), but they sure as hell don't
> make an effort to ensure it gets equal treatment.  So what do you
> do ?  You find another way to make money (fair is fair).  But instead
> of offering better services or trying to create new products, you
> try and revive that old zombie from the end of the 90s: prioritized
> traffic and the need to pay what amounts to metered access.  Telcos
> hate flat rates, it's a law of nature like nature hates vacuum.
> And (please, anybody show me the numbers to prove me wrong) the
> whole problem of QoS being needed for VoIP is bull.  VoIP represents
> too small a share of carrier bandwidth to be significant, and it
> will only be a problem at the edge when the networks get congested
> -- i.e. it's a problem that's solved between the ISP and the customer,
> not end-to-end.  Claiming the contrary is a return to the reserved
> circuit, underused capacity of the bygone days of X25.
>
> I'm no defender of Net Neutrality as a law: I think it's preposterous
> that lobbyists are even trying to pass this one, it shouldn't even
> be necessary.  But when carriers see they can't make the same bottom
> line as they did before and decide to make businesses that do turn
> a profit cough up in a discriminatory fashion, I call that cheap
> tactics -- especially when it's known that they won't invest in
> faster infrastructure because there's simply no incentive to do so,
> not because they lack money.
>
> P.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance