NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
In my previous post I tried to avoid getting dragged into arguments that
mischaracterize the problem. It's not about the speed -- if I can pay for my
local segment of glass (or whatever) and I put gear that runs it at OC-192
speeds then fine.
That doesn't guarantee that I can get that speed across the entire path. In
fact today's carriers are explicit - if they sell me a 10Mbps service they
make no promises that I will actually get that speed. Charging me more of an
OC-192 is making a promise they can't keep
So you can say that I do indeed argue for OC-192 speeds at the same price as
DSL copper. But I (or my community) might need to do trenching to get glass
in order to go 10Gbps over a distance.
As I also wrote we don't give VoIP priority (except in special hacks like
over a slow local constriction) -- we rely on capacity.
We merely need to align interests -- those who have content to deliver would
want more capacity to be available at a zero marginal cost. If they didn't
also have a stake in the monetizing the network they would be the strongest
advocates of removing the network itself a chokepoint that monetizes our
misery.
[ Bob, I wouldn't typically categorize you as being on the "network
neutrality side" of the debates per se in any case, since your
focus tends to be on your set of proposed solutions aimed at
essentially total reorganization of Internet infrastructure and
topology in manners that seem (to me anyway) to be unlikely in the
U.S. for the short to medium term. This is not to say that in the
long run there isn't much merit to your ideas in this regard, but
that in relation to the immediate issues we're dealing with right
now, many of such concepts seem not to be generally applicable
in a practical manner at the moment.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
- - -
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Richard Bennett
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 03:20
To: Lauren Weinstein
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be
neutral on net neutrality"
Thanks 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):
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus30-2009aug30,0,3436552.column
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator
>
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC