A long series of comments on "L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be neutral on net neutrali"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: August 30, 2009 3:05:11 AM EDT
To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be  
neutral on net neutrality"


"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

Begin forwarded message:

From: "George Ou" <george_ou () lanarchitect net>
Date: August 30, 2009 2:44:07 AM EDT
To: "'Lauren Weinstein'" <lauren () vortex com>, <nnsquad () nnsquad org>
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US	 
National	Broadband Plan

Net Neutrality proponents for years have been trying to say that Net
Neutrality is the fight against Net Censorship all the while using bogus
examples of net censorship.  Moreover, many of the Net Neutrality  
activists
have claimed and continue to claim that the Internet is supposed to be
stupid as they misrepresent and misunderstand the End to End principle.
Some of the Net Neutrality bills like Wyden completely outlawed
prioritization, while others bills made prioritization technology  
impossible
to implement by making it illegal to charge for the service and do the
necessary budget enforcement since you can't base decisions on the  
source or
destination.

So no Lauren, it's not just some "hack" argument which is a real cheap  
shot
against Bennett on your part.  Bennett has been taking his position on
principle without pay for several years.  I don't see you referring to
others LONG TIME hacks as "hacks" and it shows your obvious bias.  The
assertion that Net Neutrality would make the Internet stupid is an  
accurate
and deserved one.  Even Larry Lessig has had to come out and say that he
opposes Net Neutrality bills like Markey because it outlaws  
differentiated
services on differentiated pricing.  Tim Berners-Lee has always believed
that differentiated pricing are perfectly acceptable, but he's willing  
to
compromise his own principles and support regulation that would in fact
outlaw differentiated pricing.

The Internet and broadband even under common carrier regulation never
prohibited differentiated pricing and service levels.  This is a myth
propagated by Net Neutrality regulation proponents to create a version  
of
the Internet that never actually existed.



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: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:07 PM
To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US National
Broadband Plan


> From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com>
> Date: August 29, 2009 7:47:24 PM EDT
....
> The concern of the "net roots" faction Bowers represents seems to be  
> that
a
> diverse and talented FCC team will not endorse the simplistic vision  
> of
> "all packets are equal" internetworking they've been trying to foist  
> off
on
> the American people since the net neutrality debate started.

As far as I'm concerned, claiming that net neutrality advocates are
insisting that "all packets are (or should be) equal" is the same sort
of inaccurate, derogatory canard used by the political hacks who have
been trying to equate end of life counseling with "Nazi-like death
panels."

In both of these sorts of situations, the individuals making such
claims know (or should know) full well that they are spouting
self-serving bosh that misrepresents the actual positions of their
adversaries.

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator



Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com>
Date: August 30, 2009 3:20:16 AM EDT
To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Cc: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't be  
neutral	on	net neutrality"

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


Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com>
Date: August 30, 2009 4:19:53 AM EDT
To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Cc: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US  
National	Broadband Plan

See my article in Internet Evolution about Ed Markey's latest salvo:

While well intentioned, the legislation still has a number of major  
flaws. Like
its predecessors, Markey III imposes an ill-considered ban on packet
differentiation, which it terms “discrimination.” Under the bill’s  
provisions,
an ISP or Internet transit provider may not “provide or sell to any  
content,
application, or service provider… any offering that prioritizes  
traffic over
that of other such providers on an Internet access service.”

This restriction is in line with the widespread but mistaken belief  
that “all
packets are equal <http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=205>" on the  
Internet. Its
effect is to ban the sale of “enhanced delivery services” that would  
enable
innovators to develop over-the-top services that need out-of-the- 
ordinary
functions from the Internet’s transport system, as well as the use of  
management
practices that provide a boost to VoIP or similar kinds of latency- 
sensitive
services.

http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=180730&;

RB

Lauren Weinstein wrote:
> > From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com>
> >
> > Date: August 29, 2009 7:47:24 PM EDT
> ...
>
>
> > The concern of the "net roots" faction Bowers represents seems to  
> > be that a
> > diverse and talented FCC team will not endorse the simplistic  
> > vision of
> > "all packets are equal" internetworking they've been trying to  
> > foist off on
> > the American people since the net neutrality debate started.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, claiming that net neutrality advocates are
> insisting that "all packets are (or should be) equal" is the same sort
> of inaccurate, derogatory canard used by the political hacks who have
> been trying to equate end of life counseling with "Nazi-like death
> panels."
>
> In both of these sorts of situations, the individuals making such
> claims know (or should know) full well that they are spouting
> self-serving bosh that misrepresents the actual positions of their
> adversaries.
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator

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

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mischa Beitz <mischa () beitz org>
Date: August 30, 2009 4:42:17 AM EDT
To: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>, nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US  
National Broadband Plan

There are a lot of interesting characterizations going on in this  
exchange.

A few things jumped out at me as I read it:

1) Bennett was actually quite careful to identify Chris Bowers ("Net
Roots") with a "faction" of the network neutrality movement, not the
movement as a whole; something you'd expect in any large political
movement. While it's clear to me that the vast majority of the people
working for net neutrality legislation have taken a position more
aligned with the Wu/Lessig approach, I think it's fair to say there
are still those who would prefer to see something akin to "all packets
are equal" legislation (though there's still a lot of room within that
description for a number of different positions). Whether or not Chris
Bowers et al. are members of this faction, I have no idea.

2) The characterization of "all packets are equal" as somehow a
misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the End to End principle is
decidedly up for argument and fails to address the subtleties of the
positions most of the people on this list are familiar with. Moreover,
the overuse of "stupid" to refer to a neutral network (even an "all
packets are equal" network) is an unfortunate turn of phrase - though
we'll almost certainly have to suffer it's abuse further.

3) I don't think anyone has ever claimed common carrier regulation (of
anything, from railroads to airlines to telecoms) has prohibited
differentiated pricing. I doubt there's a myth there to bust. Though
the internet was still vastly more egalitarian prior to Brand-X and
legislation exempting it from telecoms regulation.

It'd be nice to see some more substantive discussion on this list,
instead of the usual "spin" from the usual suspects.

Mischa

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:44 PM, George Ou<george_ou () lanarchitect net>  
wrote:
> Net Neutrality proponents for years have been trying to say that Net
> Neutrality is the fight against Net Censorship all the while using  
> bogus
> examples of net censorship.  Moreover, many of the Net Neutrality  
> activists
> have claimed and continue to claim that the Internet is supposed to be
> stupid as they misrepresent and misunderstand the End to End  
> principle.
> Some of the Net Neutrality bills like Wyden completely outlawed
> prioritization, while others bills made prioritization technology  
> impossible
> to implement by making it illegal to charge for the service and do the
> necessary budget enforcement since you can't base decisions on the  
> source or
> destination.
>
> So no Lauren, it's not just some "hack" argument which is a real  
> cheap shot
> against Bennett on your part.  Bennett has been taking his position on
> principle without pay for several years.  I don't see you referring to
> others LONG TIME hacks as "hacks" and it shows your obvious bias.  The
> assertion that Net Neutrality would make the Internet stupid is an  
> accurate
> and deserved one.  Even Larry Lessig has had to come out and say  
> that he
> opposes Net Neutrality bills like Markey because it outlaws  
> differentiated
> services on differentiated pricing.  Tim Berners-Lee has always  
> believed
> that differentiated pricing are perfectly acceptable, but he's  
> willing to
> compromise his own principles and support regulation that would in  
> fact
> outlaw differentiated pricing.
>
> The Internet and broadband even under common carrier regulation never
> prohibited differentiated pricing and service levels.  This is a myth
> propagated by Net Neutrality regulation proponents to create a  
> version of
> the Internet that never actually existed.
>
>
>
> 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: Saturday, August 29, 2009 11:07 PM
> To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC Hires Industry Shill to Develop US  
> National
> Broadband Plan
>
>
> > From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com>
> > Date: August 29, 2009 7:47:24 PM EDT
> ....
> > The concern of the "net roots" faction Bowers represents seems to  
> > be that
> a
> > diverse and talented FCC team will not endorse the simplistic  
> > vision of
> > "all packets are equal" internetworking they've been trying to  
> > foist off
> on
> > the American people since the net neutrality debate started.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, claiming that net neutrality advocates are
> insisting that "all packets are (or should be) equal" is the same sort
> of inaccurate, derogatory canard used by the political hacks who have
> been trying to equate end of life counseling with "Nazi-like death
> panels."
>
> In both of these sorts of situations, the individuals making such
> claims know (or should know) full well that they are spouting
> self-serving bosh that misrepresents the actual positions of their
> adversaries.
>
> --Lauren--
> NNSquad Moderator



--
Mischa Beitz
http://mischa.beitz.org


Begin forwarded message:

From: Vint Cerf <vint () google com>
Date: August 30, 2009 4:49:01 AM EDT
To: nnsquad <nnsquad () nnsquad org>
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


Begin forwarded message:

From: "George Ou" <george_ou () lanarchitect net>
Date: August 30, 2009 7:08:35 AM EDT
To: "'Vint Cerf'" <vint () google com>, "'nnsquad'" <nnsquad () nnsquad org>
Cc: <richard () bennett com>, "'Brett Glass'" <brett () lariat net>, "'Dave  
Farber'" <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't	 
be	neutral	on	net neutrality"

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.

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.

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.



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?



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



Begin forwarded message:

From: Vint Cerf <vint () google com>
Date: August 30, 2009 7:31:14 AM EDT
To: "George Ou" <george_ou () lanarchitect net>
Cc: "'nnsquad'" <nnsquad () nnsquad org>, <richard () bennett com>, "'Brett  
Glass'" <brett () lariat net>, "'Dave Farber'" <dave () farber net>
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


Begin forwarded message:

From: "George Ou" <george_ou () lanarchitect net>
Date: August 30, 2009 8:10:12 AM EDT
To: "'Vint Cerf'" <vint () google com>
Cc: "'nnsquad'" <nnsquad () nnsquad org>, <richard () bennett com>, "'Brett  
Glass'" <brett () lariat net>, "'Dave Farber'" <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't	 
be	neutral	on	net neutrality"

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



Begin forwarded message:

From: Vint Cerf <vint () google com>
Date: August 30, 2009 9:12:47 AM EDT
To: "George Ou" <george_ou () lanarchitect net>
Cc: "'nnsquad'" <nnsquad () nnsquad org>, <richard () bennett com>, "'Brett  
Glass'" <brett () lariat net>, "'Dave Farber'" <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't	 
be	neutral	on	net neutrality"

no i am not in favor of volume pricing; i am in favor of capacity (bit/ 
second) pricing.

On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:10 AM, George Ou wrote:

> 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


Begin forwarded message:

From: "George Ou" <george_ou () lanarchitect net>
Date: August 30, 2009 9:32:24 AM EDT
To: "'Vint Cerf'" <vint () google com>
Cc: "'nnsquad'" <nnsquad () nnsquad org>, <richard () bennett com>, "'Brett  
Glass'" <brett () lariat net>, "'Dave Farber'" <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: L.A. Times Biz Section/Lazarus: "We can't	 
be	neutral	on	net neutrality"

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to answer a few simple questions.  I
don't "favor" fractional circuits, and I'd absolutely LOVE to have a
fulltime dedicated circuit, but I like the freedom of buying a  
fractional
circuit with a volume usage cap I can afford.  Would you, or would you  
not
deny me this right to a volume capped and are you in favor of  
legislation to
ban usage caps?

Are you or are you not in favor of Net Neutrality bills like Markey that
would ban differentiated services, services which you stated you're in  
favor
of?



George Ou

-----Original Message-----
From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint () google com]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:13 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"

no i am not in favor of volume pricing; i am in favor of capacity (bit/
second) pricing.

On Aug 30, 2009, at 8:10 AM, George Ou wrote:

> 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






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com