Re: It's the Internet Stupid

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: June 7, 2009 6:02:43 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: "David S Isenberg" <isen () isen com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: It's the Internet Stupid

The comments below illustrate the reason we need to be limit network  
management practices. Even with the best of intentions current  
practices in network management do not address future needs as  
capacity increases and innovation continues outside the transport.

The problem is that we are attempting to repurpose an industry that is  
based on adding value to the basic facilities. One that assumes it has  
sufficient control to make promises about quality and to favor  
applications that are more valuable. This value can be measured in  
money or an arbitrary measure such as favoring “time  
sensitive” (however defined by whomever) traffic over other traffic.

Again and again we’ve seen that increasing capacity has yielded more  
value and better results than attempting to make the most efficient  
use of existing facilities. Internet-style connectivity emerges from  
how we use the network facilities. It is a different interpretation of  
“networking”.

We’ve seen the conflict in the attitude towards “bit-torrent”.  
Recently I attempted to download a 9GB release from a group at  
Microsoft and they suggested I use a program called “Free Download  
Manager”. I noticed it used torrent protocols. This makes a lot more  
sense that old-style FTP. Even if I’m downloading from a single  
provider the new protocols provide far more flexibility. I consider it  
as nothing more than the next generation FTP. Yet such protocols are  
in directly conflict with the idea that the network provider is in  
sufficient control of the network and applications to impose policies  
within the network.

Instead we need new facility managers who are hired to improve the  
capacity of their facilities rather than managing the network as a  
billable service.

Torrent and Skype are examples of protocols which have their own end  
point identifiers rather than relying on the IP address. A network  
provider will have essentially no involvement in the relationships  
over the network. In particular, no relationship it could trust to  
define something like “time-sensitive”.

Alas, as long we have to get our “stupid network” from companies whose  
very definition is threatened by the idea of “dumb pipes” we’ll need  
to be explicit in preventing them from forcing us to buy their added  
value. This is an interim measure until they succeeded by companies  
less conflicted.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 17:04
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: It's the Internet Stupid



Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: June 7, 2009 4:44:15 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid

http://itstheinternetstupid.com/

Dave, and everyone:

Note that this comment to the FCC contains a plea that the FCC
prohibit network management by Internet providers. To wit, it asks the
agency to "prohibit discriminatory or preferential treatment of
packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents."

Sounds good on the surface -- unless one understands its full
implications.

Since the information identifying (among other things) the protocol
being used is part of the packet contents, this would make it
impossible to prioritize time-sensitive traffic.

Likewise, if providers could not route packets to a more direct
connection or send them at a higher speed when they were bound to or
from specific addresses, it would be impossible for a content or
service provider which required enhanced performance (e.g. low latency
or jitter) to pay a surcharge for higher quality of service. This
restriction (which would be the equivalent of prohibiting UPS from
offering "red," "blue," and "ground" service) would kill innovation by
precluding cutting edge technologies from ever seeing the light of
day. It would also effectively outlaw content delivery networks.

The comment likewise pays homage to competition, but ignores the fact
that the regulation it recommends would fall most heavily on
competitive providers and likely would force them out of business,
creating a duopoly.

There seem to be quite a few people who, perhaps due to fearmongering
by lobbyists for large corporations, seem bound and determined to
straitjacket the Internet with regulations. Alas, they apparently
forget that the Internet could not have existed were it not originally
designed as a loose federation of networks, each of which was subject
to DIFFERENT acceptable use policies and management strategies. (Were
it not designed this way, educational institutions, government
agencies, and private companies could not have signed on, because no
one set of policies could have fit all of them.)

They also appear to forget that the best way to discourage something
is to regulate it. If the signatories on this statement truly wish to
see universal broadband deployment, they must not "monkey wrench" this
goal by hobbling the rollout of new technologies and prohibiting
innovation.

--Brett Glass, LARIAT





-------------------------------------------
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




-------------------------------------------
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