NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:10 AM, George Ou wrote:
First of all, you didn't answer my question on whether you support the
proposed Net Neutrality bills. You stated that you think it's ok to pay
more for better service. The bills make that illegal. So are you, or are
you not in favor of those Net Neutrality bills e.g., Markey (any version) or
Snowe-Dorgan.
"I think you misinterpret Rick's intent. A bandwidth cap is superior to a
volume usage cap for several reasons. First, if you can purchase a bandwidth
cap"
No, I didn't misinterpret Mr. Whitt. He, along with Vuze at Innovation
2008, clearly stated that usage caps were a good solution, one that's better
than intelligent network management. Free Press testified to the FCC that
usage caps were the better alternative to network management. The EFF
expressed similar opinions and even used Australia as a great example of
Broadband. Larry Lessig testified to the FCC that we needed to go to usage
caps to help fund the Internet. Tim Wu said that metered Internet was the
fairest thing going.
Look, I'd like nothing more than unlimited usage, but I'm not naïve enough
to think that it won't raise the cost of broadband or network access to a
level that's too much for consumers to pay. I like being able to pay a
lower price for a more shared service that meets my needs. I'd love to own
a dedicated circuit and there's it goes without saying that dedicated
circuits are superior, but I'm not Google and there's no way I can afford
it. Volume caps are essentially a way of buying fractional ownership.
Google might be able to buy a 767 party jet, but a smaller business might
only be able to buy 1/100th of a Leer jet. Google might be able to buy a
dedicated circuit, but most of us can only buy a fractional circuit with a
volume usage cap.
"I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying you should not have
access to options offered; I am suggesting a different set of options than
volume pricing."
Pardon me, but I'm not very good at deciphering double speak. First you say
I should have access to "options offered" (assuming you mean volume pricing
plans), then you say it should not be volume pricing. Are you, or are you
not in favor of banning volume pricing? Can you please clarify. Because if
you are suggesting that
"It seems to me that access providers who offer video services would
Actually provide a wider range of options if the total capacity they have
built to offer users could be dynamically shared between video services and
internet services, to the extent these are distinct."
IPTV does this today, and it prioritizes the IPTV stream above all else.
However, the user can decide to give IPTV ZERO priority by shutting their
IPTV set top box down. But the Net Neutrality bills which prohibit you from
favoring based on source (which is necessary for IPTV to work as reliably as
Cable or Satellite TV) would make it impossible to offer any kind of
reliable IPTV service.
"In fact, at some point, it seems to me that the internet access capacity
might just as well be offered to the user in such a way that the customer
can choose video sources provided by the access provider or those provided
by others, both using Internet transport as their basic access mechanism.
In that way, the customer can pay for broadband access that allows the
customer access to any Internet source, regardless of origin, at capacities
up to and including the maximum bandwidth to which the customer has
subscribed."
But you can't access any source for video today, and you of all people
should know that. There is no such thing as "maximum bandwidth" in the
world of broadband, and "up to" does NOT mean "at least" in anyone's
dictionary. You certainly can't access my server for streaming video or any
other website because we can't afford the bandwidth or volume to support
unicast traffic to thousands or millions of users. That's why Google has
made exclusive contracts with ISPs and network operators so that they would
have EXCLUSIVE access to edge caching. That access is by definition
exclusive and discriminatory, but it's reasonable and due discrimination
because Google paid for it. This is no different from the exclusive
capacity reserved for cable TV or FiOS TV or U-verse TV. The only
difference with U-verse is that while it gets maximum and exclusive priority
over 64% of the FTTN broadband pipe, the user can make that 16% or even 0%
by switching to an SD channel or turning the box off. Markey's latest bill
would make this exclusive source-based priority system illegal, and it would
outlaw existing business models essential to funding our broadband
infrastructure.
So again Vint, are you or are you not in favor of Markey's Net Neutrality
proposal? Would you also prohibit me from buying fractional circuits that
have volume usage caps? How long will you, and many others on this list
continue to duck this question?
I also pose this question to anyone else on this list who have raised issue
with Richard Bennett's comments. These are the key question that few people
on this list seem to want to answer and they seem more interested in ad
hominum attacks.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 4:31 AM
To: George Ou
Cc: 'nnsquad'; richard@bennett.com; 'Brett Glass'; 'Dave Farber'
Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be
neutral on net neutrality"
On Aug 30, 2009, at 7:08 AM, George Ou wrote:
Great explanation Vint. So you're saying it's ok to charge more for
better
service, then can I assume that you are opposed to the Markey (any
version)
Net Neutrality bill which prohibits charging more for better priority?
I do take big exception with your assertion that it's not ok to
charge by
volume. Your own Richard Whitt has stated that usage caps are a
superior
alternative to network management last year. Every broadband
provider in
the world, either implicitly or explicitly implements usage caps.
If you go
over the cap (I prefer the disclosed explicit caps rather than the
undisclosed implicit caps), you're either billed more money or
you're given
a warning. If you continue to exceed the cap, then the provider stops
taking your business.
I think you misinterpret Rick's intent. A bandwidth cap is superior to a volume usage cap for several reasons. First, if you can purchase a bandwidth cap, and if the provider can limit your usage through traffic shaping, you need not be fearful of a huge bill or sudden loss of access. You simply are constrained by the bandwidth cap. In fact, during periods in which the system capacity is not fully utilized, it might even be allowed to exceed a bandwidth cap. The purchase of a particular maximum is essentially an assurance of access to capacity in times of congestion. Users get their pro-rata share of access capacity based on their purchased caps.
The same is true of server access. My colocation server costs me $50/month (which is very cheap for a 1U server) with 100 Mbps Ethernet connection. That includes the rack space, electricity, basic support, AND BANDWIDTH. The ONLY reason I can get this great service at this low price is that I not exceed 1000 GB of data transfers a month or I would get billed for each additional GB used per month. But that's absolutely wonderful for me since I hardly need to transfer more than 400 GB per month, and I get this very responsive burstable Internet connection that rockets to 100 Mbps.
you could get the same treatment with a bandwidth cap.
I also have the option of buying a DEDICATED 100 Mbps circuit with no usage volume caps for $1100 per month (http://www.dedicatedserverstore.com/Colo_dedicatedlines.html). Our organization, unlike Google, can't afford to pay that kind of money. So are you honestly suggesting that the 1000 GB usage cap pricing option not be available to a little guy like me? If that's the case, then you're effectively putting me and every other small org or business out of business Vint. You're effort to save me from "discrimination" is killing me.
I think you misunderstand my point. I am not saying you should not have access to options offered; I am suggesting a different set of options than volume pricing.
Furthermore, Access Providers have invested in private circuits and
facilities just like Google has invested a lot of money in private
circuits
and facilities. Those Access Providers use those circuits that THEY
BUILT
AND PAID FOR to offer reliable TV services so that they can stay in
business
and have sufficient revenue to invest in our next generation broadband
infrastructure. Are you now suggesting that we need a bill like
Markey III
which would outlaw and confiscate these private circuits so that
they could
be given to the public Internet? If so, would you also support
opening up
some of Google's "private transmission capacity" (as Markey III puts
it) to
me and every other small organization and business on the Internet
so that
we have the ability to get some equal access to the Internet?
It seems to me that access providers who offer video services would
actually
provide a wider range of options if the total capacity they have built
to offer
users could be dynamically shared between video services and internet
services, to the extent these are distinct. In fact, at some point, it
seems to me
that the internet access capacity might just as well be offered to the
user
in such a way that the customer can choose video sources provided by the
access provider or those provided by others, both using Internet
transport
as their basic access mechanism. In that way, the customer can pay for
broadband access that allows the customer access to any Internet source,
regardless of origin, at capacities up to and including the maximum
bandwidth
to which the customer has subscribed.
George
-----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 1:49 AM To: nnsquad Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
I prefer to emphasize the need for non-discriminatory service,
providing access to internet services on equal terms for all
application providers and especially consumers. Does this mean that
the access provider cannot charge more for larger capacity? No, I
think it is reasonable for a consumer and application provider to pay
more for higher capacity (preferably measured in maximum bits/second,
not measured in volume of bytes transferred). Access providers who
impose limits based on total bytes transferred (e.g. per month) do not
really reflect the constraints on their system's capacity. the
capacity limit has to do more with the rate of data transfer than with
the volume. Bits per second, not bytes per month. If applications
require distinct classes of service (e.g. low latency), I think it is
quite permissible to offer such services. But, as Lauren argues, I
think these options must be equally available to all application
service providers and consumers. This does not require that all
packets be treated equally. It does require that all users be provided
equal access to such preferential services. I agree with Lauren's
point that the provider of access services (especially broadband, by
whatever definition we end up for "broadband") not discriminate
against competing application providers by favoring the access
provider's services over those of competitors. In rough terms, this
means that the underlying Internet access should be equally accessible
among competitors.
The rationale for this treatment is to maintain the open networking
effect that allows new application providers to introduce new
applications without discrimination, thereby maintaining an ecosystem
that is friendly to innovation. I hope you will note that the proposal
above does not prohibit access providers from responding to denial of
service attacks or managing congestion. I also allows them to offer
differentiated services but in such a way that competing application
providers are not disadvantaged merely because they are not the
providers of access facilities.
A key question is when differentiated access services become discriminatory. If we are unable to define this point clearly, then another option in legislation is to provide for a process in which anti-competitive and discriminatory access practices can be adjudicated. Of particular concern is that users of the Internet have the freedom to choose what application providers they wish to use without discrimination or interference by the access providers.
vint
On Aug 30, 2009, at 3:20 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus30-2009aug30,0,3436552.columnThanks for proving the point, Lauren. From your LA Times article:
"Network operators want to set priorities for users, rather than letting all data flow freely and equally.
"At the same time, a pay-for-play system would create a tier of "super providers" that enjoy a competitive edge over rivals that lack the resources for speedier service. This also would make it harder for entrepreneurs to even enter the market.
""You're essentially ghettoizing Internet content that cannot pay to play," said Scott at Free Press."
That's the argument for "all packets are equal" in black and white.
RB
[ No Richard, you're misprepresenting the argument. Nobody of note that I know of on the "network neutrality" side of current debates is saying that customers should be able to buy OC-192 speeds for the same price as a consumer DSL line, nor that time-sensitive payloads (like VoiP) shouldn't be able to have appropriate priorities over, say, conventional browsing. But the question is, do all comers have access to these facilities at a competitive price and on equivalent terms, or do the ISPs favor their own content and services and those of their partners?
The dominant carriers, most of whom now have highly valuable content (mostly video) that they want to deliver "out of band" in relation to other traffic, are also the ones who are able to arbitrarily set the pricing, TOSes, restrictions, and virtually all other parameters for access services which allow for competition with these ISPs' own content. Bandwidth caps, which would only affect external Internet traffic (including all Internet video competitors) but not cable-company provided video fed (via the same protocols in most cases) on the companies' own video on demand and pay per view systems, are an obvious example of the problem.
In other words, in the absence of reasonable regulation, the major ISPs not only may have a direct conflict of interest in terms of content, but also control all the balls relating to the ability of potential content and service competitors to compete in terms of speed and pricing.
With the appeals court ruling a couple of days ago voiding the FCC rule limiting the size of the giant cable companies, this situation can only be expected to become far worse in an unregulated Internet access ecosystem.
-- Lauren Weinstein NNSquad Moderator ]
- - -
Lauren Weinstein wrote:"We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
"The snooze-worthy phrase is about something vital to all: whether
the
companies that control the pipes through which data flow can dictate
terms to the websites that originate the data ..."
Full Article (8/30/09):
--Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator
-- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC