Interesting People mailing list archives
Net Neutrality question for IP list]
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:38:15 -0500
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [IP] Net Neutrality question for IP list Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:32:55 -0500 From: Bob Schmidt <schmidt () provider com> To: dave () farber net References: <43F50712.8070002 () farber net> Dave, for IP if you wish. I believe the correct answer is, it's fine for Bellsouth the cut a deal with Cuban as long as they're willing to cut deals with Cuban competitors. Lessig's comments only cover Network Neutrality (which is essentially limited to the Internet and provision by and interconnection between backbone providers/peering points and by extension to broadband -- technologies which will be consumed by what's coming next -- and issues which are basically becoming obsolete as telcos morph into cablecos), and the Four Internet Freedoms posited by Michael Powell (which are about as dumb and unimaginative as you could ever expect any govt bureaucrat to come up with). Lessig distinguishes between Network Neutrality and common carrier. He says the latter is not needed. Thus, according to Lessig, it would be perfectly OK for Bellsouth to offer carriage of a particular special network protocol to Mark Cuban's applications, but only if Bellsouth offers the same ability to carry same/similar/different special network protocols to other application providers in addition to Mark Cuban. It's not an issue of whether any one particular application can or cannot be offered or carried but rather whether doing so precludes others (i.e. Cuban competitors) from doing something identical or similar (or however else one would interpret "competitive") over the same carrier. In the example Lessig gave in his Senate testimony, it would be an issue of scarcity of bandwidth or the entire bandwidth consumed by one provider who can afford to buy all of it, thereby excluding competitors from purchasing. (But Lessig's is probably a overly simplistic view of what is at stake since Network Neutrality applies only to TCP/IP bandwidth and once the telephone company morphs into cable company, there is no telling what protocols it will use to deliver one way content. On the other hand, it is premised on what is surely a faulty assumption - what proof is there that bandwidth is actually limited? If we're seeing anything, it's exactly the opposite - a never ending fountain of more and more bandwidth.) It's an issue of limitation and discrimination rather than differentiation. In other words, by all means differentiate the packets all you want for efficient transport, but don't prohibit what other Bellsouth customers/content providers can do. It is also going to be an issue of interoperability and interconnection between providers as opposed to what goes on in closed systems/walled gardens. In other words, does Cuban have to cut separate deals with every cable and phone/broadband provider in order for his application to work, or will he be able to rely on end to end capabilities across numerous backbone providers to deliver content to everyone? And it's an issue of access - make sure that all of the speediest bandwidth cannot be sold out to a few providers already in business today at prices that future newcomers would find prohibitive and thus discourage them from entering/participating in the market. It's also an issue of what the transport and application layers can support - do they work only within walled gardens or will they cross networks boundaries. Of course, the most likely scenario will require the capability to do both at the same time - provide support for each phone/cable ("ph-able") company's channels of service for the content it carries and controls on a subscription basis to its own subscribers - perhaps via proprietary protocols - and provide for transport of applications (content) - via standards based protocols - from independent sources that originate on other networks and terminate in the home of the ph-able's customers who pay the independent sources directly with no payment to the local ph-able company. For consumers this framework is too limited to address the real issues of the metamorphosis of phone companies into cable companies since the "4 Freedoms" are limited solely to industry concerns and do absolutely nothing to address consumer issues with Internet access which revolve around consumer access to and control over the pipe in both directions, not just the ability to use applications and end user devices, read agreements and passively receive music and video. For consumers, they're 4 freedoms without freedom, but that is what we have come to expect from the FCC. Nicholas Johnson where are you? After all, even a grandparent expects more from her internet connection that this passive world view offered by Powell (as paraphrased by Lessig): Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content. Freedom to Use Applications. [C]onsumers should be able to run applications of their choice. Freedom to Attach Personal Devices. [C]onsumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes. Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information. [C]onsumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans. Sure, we're all culture consumers at one level. But the Internet user who enjoys these "freedoms" is a one dimensional dumb pointer and clicker and empty vessel to be filled with pay per view content, not the independent, creative, multimedia-enabled communicator and commerce agent that we know Internet users to be. Oh, and you can read your service agreement, but forget about the freedom to negotiate terms with your phone company or cable company. Bob Schmidt Author of The Geek's Guide to Internet Business Success The First Book to Address the Business Side of the Web Design Business At 06:13 PM 2/16/2006 -0500, you wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Net Neutrality question for IP list Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:10:10 -0600 From: Floyd Ferguson <floyd.ferguson () us fujitsu com> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> CC: Floyd Ferguson <floyd.ferguson () us fujitsu com>, Floyd Ferguson <f.ferguson () verizon net>, Rod Naphan <Rod.Naphan () us fujitsu com> Professor Farber, I have a question about the net neutrality issue that perhaps could be clarified by some of the participants in the Interesting People mailing list. Professor Lessig, in his Feb-7 Senate Testimony pays considerable attention to "application competition" and the risks associated with "access-tiering", characterized as adding "an additional tax on network innovators based on the particular service being offered." It's not entirely clear how this differs from a definition of "service differentiation ... to accommodate heterogeneous application and user requirements, and to permit differentiated pricing of Internet service" [RFC2475], and which forms the basis for the Differentiated Services Architecture. So, my specific question is, within the concept of Network Neutrality advocated by Lessig, whether a broadband provider like BellSouth would or would not be allowed to develop and deploy a RFC2474-based service to offer potential customers like Mark Cuban, that could support unique application requirements, as for instance, substantially superior error loss rate or packet delay variation between the service access point and the residential connection of a BellSouth broadband customer, which would enable Cuban's application to successfully play video to the large screen plasma TV rather than a computer screen. Certainly one can with little effort imagine how a carrier like BellSouth could use such a protocol to develop services for a customer like Cuban to provide significant competitive advantage for video applications for BellSouth broadband subscribers compared to video applications from other companies not willing to pay for such a service. And how these differenitated services would yield significant benefit to the residential broadband user. Again, the question is whether this would be OK or not OK within Lessig's framework? If not, why not? Thanks, Floyd Ferguson Distinguished Strategic Planner Fujitsu Network Communications floyd.ferguson () us fujitsu com ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as schmidt () provider com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Net Neutrality question for IP list] Dave Farber (Feb 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Net Neutrality question for IP list] Dave Farber (Feb 20)