[ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services

[David Berry <ravenman@rocketmail.com>]

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:45:30 -0700
From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services
To: George Ou <george_ou@lanarchitect.net>
Cc: "nnsquad@nnsquad.org" <nnsquad@nnsquad.org>
Message-ID: <4C7823EA.8020505@csudh.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed

On 8/27/2010 10:44 AM, George Ou wrote:

> Telepresence is certainly one example of bypassing the best-effort 
Internet.

Whether or not the best-effort Internet is capable of "telepresence" 
depends upon the speed and resolution your application requires.

Also, the performance of the best-effort Internet and QOS-based Internet 
change constantly.  You would probably have said the best-effort 
Internet could not support VoIP ten years ago.


> Paying $45 for a low quality 1.2 Mbps PPV even only to
> have it pause in the middle of a crucial moment sucks.

Paying $45 for a bunch of crappy channels that you never watch in order 
to see a few programs that you want to watch each week sucks too.

Larry Press


Fellow NNSquaders,

Let's take a moment to expound on the very simple, and spot-on observation from 
Mr. Larry Press here:  that the channelized, preferred, subsidized, and 
"enhanced" content being delivered TODAY on the same network infrastructures as 
the Internet is in fact the cause of the scarcity that the providers are 
claiming as the basis for rejecting Network Neutrality.

The Internet, with its protocols and applications, is the evolution of the 
technology of communicating information--above and beyond previous methods.  It 
stands as a testament that all information in older formats can be transmitted 
with better quality and reliability on the Internet, than its transmission 
mechanism of origin.  Today, the major players are under the same threat of 
obscurity and extinction that printed media is encountering.  Whereas the 
printed media does not serve as a gatekeeper for the Internet, these networked 
communication antiquities do.  It is therefore with greater difficulty that we 
strive to obtain greater freedom on the wire (and wireless--I'm looking at you, 
Verizon/Google).

How much greater would the availability of resources for the Internet be, if 
suddenly the content providers transformed into simple network operators 
overnight?  If your cable provider turned into an ISP exclusively?

Today, I pay for cable Internet access, but do not have or want cable T.V.  My 
needs are met much more sufficiently and thoroughly on the Internet.  I'm not 
talking about using theft, torrents or otherwise, to obtain the shows and 
information I want.  Instead, I access my shows and movies directly from 
Netflix, Fox.com, ABC.com, etc.  I have channelized my experience and the wires 
leading into my house the way I want.  The way I NEVER could with cable 
"packages".

If the Internet has accomplished one thing, in the last 10 years, it is giving a 
voice to the consumer.  To say, in a resolute voice with democratic action, "I 
will not subsidize the content or channels I don't want, in the process of 
obtaining the ones that I do."  Network Neutrality is a misnomer for what I 
want: I want Network Freedom.  I will no longer be "programmed" by any person, 
corporation, or utility--but instead seek to program for myself.

If this is not the direction and end-game for Network Neutrality as a principle 
and an effort, then I have joined the wrong cause, and summarily excuse myself 
from the conversation and the worthless arguments meant to detract us from the 
evolution that is wedging content from delivery.  I see a future in which the 
severance between the two improves both dramatically, and who among us can say 
that such has neither been desired nor a long time coming?

-David Berry

     [ I might add, that the pricing structures from major ISPs tends to be
       explicitly designed to discourage Internet-only users.  In some
       cases, it is *impossible* to get basic Internet service without
       a TV package, or perhaps no access to the highest speed
       Internet tiers.  Even more common, pricing structured so that
       Internet-only service is unreasonably expensive unless you also
       buy phone and/or TV service (the so-called double-play,
       triple-play packages).  TW in L.A. appears to have even stopped
       writing new subscribers for double-play and now requires
       triple-play, otherwise Internet-only service is very expensive
       on a stand-alone basis.

          -- Lauren Weinstein
             NNSquad Moderator ]