NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Simple questions
|
How about we get my simple
questions answered. I keep hearing all these nasty insinuations about
Richard and myself when we’re the only ones with a clearly stated
position. How about people participating in this debate actually say they’re
in favor or against Net Neutrality legislation, or whether they’re in
favor of a ban against fractional circuits or not. There is nothing
“silly” about comparing fractional ownership of an airplane to
fractional ownership to a piece of copper or fiber. In each case, fractional
ownership means fractional cost and that means little guys like me aren’t
priced out of the market. What is so wrong with a collocation offering 3%
ownership of a 100 Mbps circuit at $25 (other $25 for electricity and rack
space) which is 2.3% of the cost of having 100% ownership of a 100 Mbps
circuit? Having a service that can burst to 100 Mbps on demand that
includes 3 Mbps average for $25/month (I have the option to buy more anytime)
is absolutely wonderful to me. If we outlaw fractional ownership of
Internet connection circuits, which is something Vint seems to be suggesting
but refuses to clarify, then I’m either stuck with paying $1100 or the
ISP will simply cap my bandwidth to 3 Mbps with zero usage caps. That
effectively cuts my average performance down to probably well under 1 Mbps even
though I’m paying for 3 Mbps simple because I cannot guarantee that my
web visitors will produce a consistent 3 Mbps demand. So the type of
regulatory restrictions that Vint Cerf is apparently lobbying for is harming
small businesses, which would severely curtail the competition for Google
because they’re one of the few companies that have the kind of scale that
can justify purchasing full ownership circuits. So the only thing
that’s silly and malicious is someone who would have government step in
and take away my flexibility and freedom. Where do you get the assumption
that IPTV is equal to web streaming? I’m talking about IPTV as a subscription
TV service over Fiber to the Node (FTTN) which is a form of video delivery that
will quickly overtake cable TV subscriptions worldwide. Qwest and
AT&T are users of FTTN technology. Yes it goes through the
router/modem used for the FTTN service, but it’s a real-time video
application (supports instant channel flipping like cable or satellite TV) that
cannot tolerate any type of bandwidth starvation or jitter. IPTV also
doesn’t create any jitter or additional latency for the FTTN user based
on my testing. As to your question on business
models. Yes, each of the two major broadband providers are essentially
fighting for half the market share which works out to roughly 30% of the homes
(since only 6 out of 10 homes want broadband today). That’s the
reason it’s VERY difficult to justify putting in all new fiber
infrastructure when there is already coax or twisted pair copper
infrastructure. Verizon did it at a HUGE risk but they seem to be on
their way to making it pay off. If you tried to insert a 3rd
physical infrastructure provider such as a municipal provider, than each
operator is effectively vying for 20% of the households assuming they achieve
equal. Now is there a market for
offering just bits or a “dumb fat pipe” (against I can’t claim
credit for inventing that term since that honor belongs to the stupid network
proponents who believe you need a managed network)? Even the municipal
fiber operators don’t think so and it’s effectively a guaranteed
death sentence. George Ou From: Bob Frankston
[mailto:Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com] The question how much effort
to put into refuting each of these "just-so" statements. Where is any
sign of understanding of accounting and the realities of each situation.
Comparing a 767 with a copper wire is silly. Where do we get the
assumption that IPTV is treated specially except in some subsets of the carrier
world? I get my IPTV (VoD) through my standard router. This isn't a debate -- it's
just posturing. If we're going to have a real discussion we need to isolate the
issues can get some reality here. So let’s start with a
simple questions: ·
I have three
broadband providers the cost of deploying is 3x. The subscriber base is 1x. If
they are all now providing essentially identical bit pipes and paths then how
can the market sustain this? ·
What is the
justification for maintaining a situation which we have a conflict of interest
with those owning the transport being in the position of using it to control
the content availability and cross subsidizing? ·
Is there a viable
business for providing pure bits? Would the market collapse as the industry
warns in http://frankston.com/?n=AssuringScarcity?
If so, then what is the alternative? -----Original Message----- 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 >> > > |