NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to answer a few simple questions. I don't "favor" fractional circuits, and I'd absolutely LOVE to have a fulltime dedicated circuit, but I like the freedom of buying a fractional circuit with a volume usage cap I can afford. Would you, or would you not deny me this right to a volume capped and are you in favor of legislation to ban usage caps? Are you or are you not in favor of Net Neutrality bills like Markey that would ban differentiated services, services which you stated you're in favor of? George Ou -----Original Message----- From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint@google.com] Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:13 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" no i am not in favor of volume pricing; i am in favor of capacity (bit/ second) pricing. 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: >> >>> 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 >>> >> >> > >