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


This may be a stupid question, but I can't come up with an answer, so here goes.

Are there really applications that can't be supported by the
best-effort internet?  Wasn't one of the foundational principles of
ARPANET development that the network would be treated as unreliable,
and that the endpoints would compensate for this?

I just find it odd that, for example, VoIP grew up as a stable
alternative technology built on top of an unreliable network, and now
that phone companies are starting using VoIP in place of POTS, they're
arguing that they need a reliable network to run it on.

-Peter

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com> wrote:
>  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-for-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 – it protects the current business model against the
>> danger of being undercut by their most feared competition – 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
>
>



-- 
Peter Sahlstrom
peter@stormlash.net
http://peter.stormlash.net