NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality"
|
Permitting operators to offer Differentiated Services *could* lead
to bad consequences, and forbidding them from offering DiffServ
*could also* lead to bad consequences, so who's to say, a priori,
that this practice should be banned? It's backward to only look at
the downsides of contemporary and future networking practices
without considering the upsides. I think this is why the Google-Verizon proposal took a somewhat nuanced view of the matter, establishing a rebuttable presumption that they should not be allowed. Of course, the proposal was flawed in that it was silent on how one goes about overcoming the presumption in a process of review which is strictly ex post and case-by-case; rebuttable presumptions are more suitable for ex ante procedures where the party wishing to offer the service can have it approved in advance rather than make and investment risk a fine in order to face the opportunity to have this service declared OK by the "mother-may-I" procedure. It seems to me that any proposal that effectively bans the implementation of RFCs (in this case, RFCs 2474, 2475, and all the others related to DiffServ and MPLS) is a non-starter. RB On 8/13/2010 6:59 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: George, I think that there is acceptance that charging more for more capacity (bits/sec) but that differential charging for priority, regardless of the type of traffic (eg real time, low delay or file transfer, or ...), could lead to anti-competitive consequences in which established competitors might prevent new competitors from gaining adequate access simply by consuming available capacity at high priority to squeeze out the competition. vint On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:47 PM, George Ou <george_ou@lanarchitect.net> wrote:"You pay your service provider a fixed charge, and it mostly keeps no eye on who you connect to, or who connects to you. In a non-neutral world, the ISP could block your access to a popular website until you paid an extra fee (like extra satellite or cable channels)" That is clearly a clueless and misleading statement for anyone that's even semi up to date on the actual policy debate. The FCC's net neutrality proposal actually doesn't prohibit broadband providers for charging customers for higher priority; it prohibits broadband providers from offering "enhanced or prioritized" services to content/app/service providers on a truly voluntary basis. That's the real sticking point that many reasonable people have a problem with. George -----Original Message----- From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Lauren Weinstein Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 8:56 AM To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org Subject: [ NNSquad ] Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality" Irish Times: "A modest proposal on internet neutrality" http://bit.ly/bm2rw7 (Irish Times) --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator -- Richard Bennett Senior Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC |