[governance] What is Network Neutrality
McTim
dogwallah at gmail.com
Mon Jan 12 09:15:14 EST 2009
Parminder,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Milton
>
>>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?
>
> 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.
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
> logic of the Internet on its head.
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.
>
> 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?
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:
>tracert google.com
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,
> is obvious; it interferes with free exercise of her choice.
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>
--
Cheers,
McTim
http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list