Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Cui bono..? Re: Europeans warned that 'Network neutrality' could raise broadband prices
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:49:27 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: "Dirk van der Woude" <dirkvanderwoude () gmail com> Date: October 22, 2008 5:43:00 AM EDT To: "Brett Glass" <brett () lariat net> Cc: dave () farber net, ip <ip () v2 listbox com>Subject: Re: Cui bono..? Re: [IP] Europeans warned that 'Network neutrality' could raise broadband prices
Reply-To: dhvanderwoude () gmail com Hello Brett, What I tried to convey is that any report on this subject needs to be transparant as to who or what paid for it. The report you linked to on Quintarelli's blog is a positive example, as all the logo's of the European duopoly are under it. One finds honest as well as self serving arguments in this discourse, it is my experience that 'spontaneous' reports by scientific institutes often indicate the latter. I agree at once with you that there's nothing wrong with paying a normal price for a good network with good service (disclosure: my 30/30 Mb Amsterdam FttH costs me euro 59 a month). As for Japan Kenjiro Cho et al. very recently published (Oct. 16) excellent new research showing that the percentage of bandwidth used for P2P in Japan is still high, however decreasing: http://www.iijlab.net/~kjc/papers/kjc-conext2008.pdf Earlier research by Cho et al. (2005) showed that yes, it is a small percentage of users that are 'heavy hitters' (i.e. P2P et.), however over time most users for a short time will belong to that small percentage. In other words a usage pattern comparable to that of many other infrastructures. In June '08 Barabasi (the author of 'Linked') published research on traffic patterns based on 100,000 followed EU cell phones. Conclusions: - 46% of all cell phone owners never leave home more than 6 miles - only 17% of people travel regularly beyond 37 miles - only a third of the above (6% of all) beyond 124 miles. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24969880/ http://www.research.neu.edu/news/?id=87So together we pay for a long distance travel infrastructure i.e. highways,
railroads (these are European cell phones), without having cui bono debates. Of course it helps that about 100% of the people want to keepthe option value of the fast long distance travel, like for annual holidays.
Last, back to Japan and broadband, the same Kenjiro Cho in May this year pointed to a guideline for packet shaping released by the Japan Internet Providers Association (JAIPA). Kenjiro quotes from the guideline: "Basic Concept Because of the rapid increase in Internet traffic, ISPs, etc. that either already implement or are considering implementing packet shaping are on the increase. However, it would not be appropriate for ISPs, etc. to easily implement packet shaping beyond a reasonable threshold for the purpose of averting network congestion when it should be tackled by enhancing network capacity. In the first place, ISPs, etc. should tackle the increase in traffic by enhancing its network capacity. It is important to recognize that packet shaping should be implemented only in exceptional circumstances, and to share this basic principle as a consensus among telecommunication carriers." The English version is at: http://www.jaipa.or.jp/other/bandwidth/guidelines_e.pdf On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Brett Glass <brett () lariat net> wrote: Everyone:Ad hominem arguments against the publishers of the reports mentioned in this thread do not affect their validity. And valid they are.... As I, as an ISP, can attest, policies which prohibit network management and optimization would indeed raise our costs substantially. In fact, even if we invested much more money in expensive infrastructure and backbone bandwidth (which is especially dear in our area), we would still likely fail to maintain good quality of service. Why? Because -- as experience in Japan has shown -- the appetite of P2P for bandwidth is essentially insatiable. What's more, longstanding flaws in the TCP/ IP protocol suite allow applications such as BitTorrent to seize priority over time-critical traffic, causing jitter on VoIP calls and annoying pauses in streaming video.
Who benefits if network engineers are allowed to do their jobs, network designers are allowed to innovate and broadband providers are allowed to compete on the basis of the quality of their customers' experience? Everyone... except for the bandwidth hogs and pirates.
For more, see http://blog.quintarelli.it/blog/files/network_management_coalition_stmt__031008_final_.pdf and also http://www.brettglass.com/principles.pdf --Brett Glass ------------------------------------------- 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
Current thread:
- Re: Cui bono..? Re: Europeans warned that 'Network neutrality' could raise broadband prices David Farber (Oct 21)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Cui bono..? Re: Europeans warned that 'Network neutrality' could raise broadband prices David Farber (Oct 21)
- Re: Cui bono..? Re: Europeans warned that 'Network neutrality' could raise broadband prices David Farber (Oct 22)