NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information

 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services


As I keep saying -- you can build your own QoS network. But I object being 
forced to pay for it.

I also don't want to suffer when companies like Verizon use protocols that are 
brittle because of an unnecessary dependence on QoS. As I keep saying today's 
telepresence systems like VoIP do not and cannot depend on QoS if they are to 
be widely available. Let's not confuse bad engineering with a requirement.

-----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: Friday, August 27, 2010 13:23
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services

  It comes down to a question of whether Internet services are required to be 
best efforts only; there are obviously many applications that a best efforts, 
edge-managed system can't support, so the advanced services loophole is a way 
to enable them to get done.

The neutrality lobby tends to demand no QoS management on the Internet, so 
what else is a poor innovator to do but bypass the Internet when he needs QoS? 
That's what the TelePresence-type systems do today.

RB

On 8/27/2010 9:51 AM, George Ou wrote:
>
> The most extreme form of Net Neutrality
> <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/the-three-extreme-forms-of-net-
> neutrality/> advocates taking private property used for delivering
> non-Internet services and mandating that it be used for Internet
> capacity. I know Bob would love to see this and he has no respect for
> private property which he like others mistakenly believes is public
> property
> <http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/techdirt-mistakens-broadband-fo
> r-public-property/>,
> but it has no legal foundation.
>
> The Verizon-Google compromise sort of defends the right to enhanced or
> prioritized services so long as they're not called "Internet". That
> upsets the people that want to mandate equal service regardless of
> payment even though the Internet has always been equal service for
> equal payment.
>
> George Ou
>
> *From:* nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
> [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Bob Frankston
> *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 9:09 AM
> *To:* 'Ellrod, Rick E.'; nnsquad@nnsquad.org
> *Subject:* [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services
>
> Yes.
>
> What more can I say â?" it protects the current business model against
> the danger of being undercut by their most feared competition â?"
> users with lots of bits.
>
> We see a form of this in today's story about NECN "NECN HD a tough
> sell for Comcast
> <http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/08/27/comcast_rivals_slow_to_pick_up_necn_hd/>"
> Why not just make NECN, which is advertising sponsored, available over
> the top.
>
> Charter spokesman Tom Cohan said: "As Charter deploys new technologies
> that allows us to use our bandwidth more effectively, we are adding HD
> channels. NECN is certainly one of a number of channels that is under
> consideration for future carriage in HD
>
> At least FiOS says they plan to add it but we're talking about a
> signal that is broadcast from my city not that far from my house. Yet
> I can't get over the abundant local capacity all around me with 3+
> broadbands [sic]. I have to wait for FiOS to add it. You can argue
> whatever business model reasons you want but in the end I don't get to
> choose what I can watch. I have to accept what Verizon decides is in
> their interest. They don't want to risk a real marketplace where they
> don't have control.
>
> If this weren't bad enough I have to call FiOS support to find out why
> the signal on 690 (Comedy Central HD) is coming in so badly. I've got
> an IP connection with my VoD coming over IP over my Ethernet to my
> STB. Why is Verizon setting aside the bulk of their fiber the cable in
> my house that they poached from Comcast (who really owns the RG-6
> Comcast installed?) for an analog signal when they could do it far
> better over IP? That's not the only problem with FiOS insistence on
> pretending it's 1950; even over IP they use brittle protocols that
> live by and thus die by QoS.
>
> So, yes yes yes. It's all about maintaining a business model even as
> the technology as left it behind.
>
> *From:* nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
> [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ellrod, Rick E.
> *Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 09:33
> *To:* nnsquad@nnsquad.org
> *Subject:* [ NNSquad ] Additional or differentiated services
>
> I wonder whether Verizon's principal purpose in introducing this
> qualification might be to protect the current model (used, for
> example, in FiOS) under which cable service and Internet access are
> two distinct services, with traditional multichannel video delivery
> not subject to the kinds of conditions net neutrality would require
> for Internet traffic.
>
> Some commenters have seemed to assume net neutrality would
> automatically mean that the traditional cable product would have to be
> subsumed under Internet access, so that "over-the-top" Internet video
> could compete on a head-to-head basis with cable operator-delivered
> multichannel video. The exception in the Verizon-Google proposal might
> be designed to prevent such arguments, not for some hypothetical
> future service, but for current cable service.
>
> Rick Ellrod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lauren Weinstein [mailto:lauren@vortex.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:40 PM
> To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org <mailto:nnsquad@nnsquad.org>
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Google, Verizon, and Getting Real
>
> Google, Verizon, and Getting Real
>
> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000749.html
>
> Greetings. Reactions to the "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework
> Proposal" ( http://bit.ly/9EEEy7 [Lauren's Blog] ) have been
> splattering around the globe ever since the two firms announced the
> plan earlier this month ( http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public Policy
> Blog] ).
>
> . . .
>
> Nor is it clear what sorts of services would qualify for the
> "additional or differentiated services" offerings (that is, not part
> of the public Internet per se) proposed by the framework plan.
>
> Verizon's CEO, during the conference call announcing the proposal,
> specifically mentioned "entertainment services" and 3D television -- 
> but these seem among the more problematic examples -- especially given
> the rapid advances in video encoding technologies (including related
> to 3D).
>
> . . .
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com <mailto:lauren@vortex.com>)
> http://www.vortex.com/lauren
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility):
> http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad):
> http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for
> Transparent Internet Performance):
>
> http://www.gctip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on
> Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
>
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
> Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
>

--
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC