NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be neutral on net neutrality"
|
True -- I treat
"neutrality" as an emergent property rather than as something that is
achievable in its own right If we think of the neutrality
debate as a gedankin (thought) experiment then one is pulled back to
either the status quo or all the way to the infrastructure model. I do understand the concern
that I’m being unrealistic but we’ve had lots of experience with
such transitions. I’m being pragmatic. We can talk abstractly about paradigm
shifts but we can also be concrete to see the effort of decouplings –
hardware/software, transport/content. We don’t need to limit ourselves to
bits – we can look at container shipping bringing a similar transition to
the transport of physical goods. We can look at the transition of roads from
private pikes to public roads or public transportation from profit centers
(IRT/BMT in NYC) to infrastructure (MTA in NYC and elsewhere). We have the history of
divestiture in 1984 and today’s situation in which the funding model and
franchise agreements are starting to unravel (http://frankston.com/?n=DumbPipes)
as well as the stories about Verizon and Time-Warner shifting to more IP based distribution.
For that matter I had a recent problem with my Verizon STBs – they weren’t
getting IP addresses so I fixed it by rebooting my router. So we’re already making
the transition but we’re clinging to a funding model that is no longer
viable. I’m just being
pragmatic – I view the idea that the current funding system can keep functioning
as dysfunctionally idealistic. -----Original Message----- 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 |