NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


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

[ NNSquad ] INTELLIGENT network management? (far from IP)

If you require QoS for VoIP then you have the PSTN not the Internet. Period.

VoIP cannot rely on QoS because you don't have enough control over the
network. And VoIP does not rely on QoS -- I verified this with Tom Evslin
who supplied much of the backbone for VoIP.

Let's not base policies on misconceptions. Yes you can build your own
intelligent network but let's not confuse it with the Internet.

If VoIP fails it fails. And if you require real time HD streaming that may
fail too. So what?

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Brett Glass
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 13:26
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? (from IP)

[A few responses to messages on the list, concatenated for brevity. -BG]

At 06:39 AM 11/29/2007, Seth Johnson wrote:
>So you would say that all decentralized search engines should be
>transparent or announce what they are?

Absolutely. We already have the "robots.txt" convention for search
engines, too.

>Just what constitutes "obfuscation?"  ?:-/

Trying to hide the nature of what you're doing. 

>Or dishonesty?

Making an agreement and then breaking it.

Lauren Weinstein writes:

>At the risk of sounding a bit like Bob Frankston, I don't accept the
>premise that ISPs have any intrinsic right to monitor my
>applications and micromanage my use of the Internet, beyond flow
>control as necessary to keep their networks healthy.  Even the fact
>that a user is choosing to run application A or application B can be
>viewed as an element of content that should be none of the ISPs'

There goes QoS for VoIP and other real time applications. Want to lose
the ability to do VoIP? It'd happen if the above were mandated.

>"Disrupting other users" by this definition doesn't include the
>simple running of protocols that make heavy use of subscribed

Yes, it does. BitTorrent, for example, tries to monopolize all
the bandwidth you give it. By doing so, it disrupts the network.
So, by the way, do GNUtella and eDonkey, though the mechanisms are

Dan Doyle writes:

>Privacy can be asymmetrical since to
>guarantee my privacy, the public that is, I need transparency from

No, you do not. As an ISP, our job is in fact to safeguard your
privacy. But we must also enforce our terms of service.

>The public's relationship to itself does not have to be
>symmetrical with its relationship to enterprise. For instance, the
>public is protected by the US constitution and enterprise is not.

This is not correct. While I am a sole proprietor and am thus
an individual protected by the Constitution, corporations likewise
have Constitutional rights. 

Ed J. writes:

>There should always be a very good reason, mutually acceptable to the
network operator and its customers, for any blocking. 

How about that it was agreed to by contract and therefore was
mutually accepted by both parties at the get-go?

Barry Gold writes:

>the world changes.  It is up to ISPs to adapt -- whether by changing the
way they provision their networks, managing user expectations, modifying
their business model, or something else (possibly a combination of those
three plus one or more somethings else).

ISPs are indeed adapting. P2P mitigation is a vital adaptation which
ISPs have made to retain quality of service. They pay tens, even hundreds
of thousands of dollars to implement it, because it is effective and
improves the customer experience (at least for customers who keep their
words and abide by their contracts).

--Brett Glass