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: "Deep Packet Inspection" Trade Group

The most interesting characteristic of the DPI position seems to be that
they are positioning it against shallow packet inspection. The idea of not
inspecting packets doesn't even seem a consideration.  

Of course it's all in the interest of assuring customers a good experience.
In essence they are simply helping to bring back the old days of the
telephone companies selling well-defined services.

This is very similar to the discussions at the FTC and the FCC which presume
that broadband a synonym for "Internet Connectivity".

For DPI -- the issue is not whether DPI is good or bad. For one camp -- is
it necessary or can they do shallow inspection. For the other camp it's --
don't you guys get it -- the Internet thrives because we got rid of the
assumption you need circuits.

It's an old battle -- same as relational database vs those with disk
addresses in the records. Or container shipping vs whatever (see the book
"The Box" about the history of container shipping).

In the natural course of events the failed ideas die off.

This is not a natural course of events. This is a world in which the
incumbents have been given total and unconditional control of paths.

So this misunderstandings cannot be challenged. While Verizon may be far
more enlightened than ATT in the end they are all service providers selling
us access paths and not connectivity.

If we're to effect change we need to get beyond the moral arguments for or
against neutrality and address the basic problem that we lack the ability to
try out alternatives and do real experiments.

What makes this even more difficult is that these protocols are meant to
dole out scarcity and there is indeed scarcity because that too is part of
this model with network capacity intentionally limited to create value. So
it all fits together nicely.

I can argue generally that where we haven't had these assumptions imposed
we've done far better because it means we added capacity and things worked
better as with voice traffic in the absence of QoS.

How do we talk about NN when we're talking across conceptual abysses. 

I believe that in order to communicate you first need to identify your
failure to communicate and then you can proceed. In this case the carriers
are demonstrating that they are not talking about the Internet and, if
anything, the FCC has captured the Internet and misses the fundamental point
of the Internet -- there is no Internet to be found by DPI -- all you'll
find is the faint homeopathic echo of the phone network. Thus an alien trace
like P2P will be rejected by the hosts because it has no corresponding

As long as you let the phone companies run the Internet it will be a phone

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Weinstein
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:32
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Cc: lauren@vortex.com
Subject: [ NNSquad ] "Deep Packet Inspection" Trade Group

Greetings.  Here's a site that many of you might find interesting.
I just received a note of introduction from the Executive Director
of what I would characterize as a "Deep Packet Inspection" (DPI)
trade organization, which apparently went online at the end of 2007:
"dPacket.org": http://www.dpacket.org

Given the heated controversies (here on this list and elsewhere) over
the various manners in which such technologies can be and are being
used (and in some cases, abused) by ISPs, you might wish to take a
look at how the DPI industry is presenting themselves, their
efforts, and their point of view.

NNSquad Moderator