NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Is network unneutrality necessarily bad?

On Nov 8, 2007 1:36 PM, The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> wrote:
> Why? Because they are in a conflict of interest. Their interest is not
> to provide good QoS to everyone, it's to maximize their return on
> investment. So what ISPs usually do is under-provisionning: say they
> sell 1000 3mbps ADSL connections, they're *not* going to buy an
> associated 3gbps pipe on the other site. They'll buy less bandwidth and
> hope that the users don't go all together download stuff at the same
> time.
> So to answer your questions more clearly:
> Yes, network unneutrality is necessarly bad, unless it's sold as such.

So why is underprovisioning necessarily bad?

If you want a fully provisioned link, you can get one today.  But
there is a reason why a dedicated T1 costs an order of magnitude more
than your home DSL line.  Do you pay $500/month for a T1?

One can argue that the consumer needs visibility into the
underprovisioning and a way to compare the effective bandwidth from
their (two) competing providers, but explaining it in a useful way is
hard (measuring is hard too).

But why should one expect an ISP to not be underprovisioned?  Any ISP
that tried to provision for peak load of all users in the worst case
would quickly find itself out of business, either from losing money on
the upstream link or from losing customers to vastly cheaper

And today's "correctly provisioned" can also quickly translate to
tomorrow's underprovisioned, as usages grow to consume the available
bandwidth, getting us back to the traffic prioritization problem.
NNSquad mailing list information: