RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?

["Brian Johnson" <bjohnson () drtel com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Herrin [mailto:bill () herrin us]
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:05 AM
> To: Hank Nussbacher
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?

<SNIP>

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rodrick Brown
<rodrick.brown () gmail com>
> wrote:
> > Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't
> > going to happen this model is used for many other outlets
> > today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes
> > to net access.
>
> It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
> receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
> party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.
>
> It'd be like the post office treating first class mail like bulk mail
> unless the recipient pays a first class mailbox fee in addition to the
> sender paying for first class delivery.

This is a pretty clunky analogy. First class mail is treated differently
(better?) than bulk mail in the USPS. There is no double payment for
this service.

> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>
wrote:
> > However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
> > requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
> > course) don't match the operational real world.  Many of those who
> > are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
> > the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.
>
> The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
> service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
> provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
> location in each state in which they operate Internet infrastructure.
> As a matter of simple fairness, someone else has already paid them to
> move the packets. Why should you have to pay them more than the cost
> of the port?

So for clarity... who pays for the peering?

> A small number of transit-frees would resent it, but it would damage
> them only in that it levels the playing field for small businesses,
> enhancing the small businesses' capabilities without enhancing their
> own.

HUH? Inanimate objects (transit-frees) do not have the  ability to
resent.

Providers being forced to do something do not resent it (unless they are
personally Invested), but they do have to recover their costs and as
such would have to raise rates given nothing else changes.

> > Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
> > advertising applied.
>
> Now you're talking about something that truly can't happen. You can't
> sell a service that, on paper, delivers less than the other guy's.
> Advertising is a constant race to the bottom because that's the
> behavior consumers reward.

I'm with you here. Keep in mind that it is the CONSUMER'S RESPONSIBILITY
to understand what they are buying. I've seen tons of people buy
something, not understanding it, then, realizing their mistake, blaming
the supplier.

I have also seen providers blatantly use wordsmithing (is that a word?)
to "trick" people into buying there snake oil. Then hold people to
contracts entered under suspicious circumstances.

It's all so frustrating.

- Brian J.

 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.