[governance] What is Network Neutrality
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Jan 12 12:14:41 EST 2009
McTim
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*.
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.
I also asked you and Ralf specifically if you are for it or against it.
So I ask it again. (and pl do respond)
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 (
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/three-flavors-net-neutrality
), 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 'Net Neutrality as Nonexclusionary Business Practices'*.* (see
the linked article for explanations.) *
*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.
> It does no such thing. If "she" chooses to use a website, then that
website is delivered via the best effort Internet.
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.
I can though judge that you got confused by a quick - and, habitually,
dismissive - reading of the following sentence I wrote
" 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."
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.
parminder
McTim wrote:
> 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>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090112/b03f906a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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