Interesting People mailing list archives
more on Coalition Asks FCC to Ensure End-to-End
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 08:33:08 -0500
------ Forwarded Message From: Bob Frankston <rmfxixB () bobf Frankston com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:34:10 -0500 To: dave () farber net, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com> Cc: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>, Glenn Fleishman <glenn () glennf com>, David Weinberger <self () evident com>, David Reed <dpreed () reed com> Subject: RE: [IP] more on Coalition Asks FCC to Ensure End-to-End Ah, QoS -- Karl is right in pointing out the slow first (please, first mile, we are not just there to be delivered to) mile is a rationalization for QoS. I agree with Karl's conclusion that we'll see lots of resistance to E2E. Asking for QoS is an example of just this kind of resistance so it is worth being explicit about how and why. I've been doing a lot of writing on the topic but mainly in small discussions where I can be free to use a ranting style. Better to read Glenn's coherent comments in http://blog.glennf.com/gmblog/archives/00000285.htm and I know that David Weinberger is also working on comments. Just as there is a danger that a call for openness can result in more regulation rather than transparency, QoS is part of the crypto-bellhead attempt to turn the Internet back into the PSTN with its oh-so-special treatment of voice streams. The proper response to current first mile limits is, as I've pointed out, to recognize that it the problem is due to intransigence and conflict of interest. There is no technical reason for such limits. Sympathizing with those holding connectivity hostage (also known as the Stockholm Syndrome) seems responsible but is self-defeating. QoS gives the middle the power to decide what traffic is more important than other traffic and it presumes that either one can examine the packets to determine whether they are VoIP packets or that the ends can flag which packets are important. The former is problematic because we are at the start of learning about VoIP and the initial implementations (mostly by Cisco as with ones I got from http://www.vonage.com) are only experiments and there is lots of room for other approaches. Thus one can't identify the VoIP traffic without explicitly defining it as neoPSTN. Of course, responsible users should encrypt all their traffic and those connecting to offices probably use VPNs anyway. Even if the users are trusted to mark their own important packets (all of mine are important!) the VPNs will hide that information. The good news is that QoS can't work even at the edges. And the better news is that there is no problem at the edges that can't be solved by adding some electronics on the wire. Of course, as long as effort is going into QoS we are getting no new capacity and just more arbitrary discrimination. QoS, like "Broadband", only provides cover for the incumbents to stave off transparency. Again, the very good news is that if we have providers (as I pointed out in my previous message) whose incentive it to provide incrementally more capacity we have the virtuous cycle of Moore's law (or what I call "just let me buy a little more at any point rather than having the Hobson's choice of 1.5mbps or 768kbps") and we have a decade of pent up technology ready to be deployed. As we've seen, latency melts away as capacity increases. At least as long as we don't to spend capacity trying to determining which packets require special treatment and buffering the traffic to create queues for sorting traffic. Even with minimal DSL assumptions and only a few mbps on the copper path (again, there is no distance limit because regenerating the signal is easy) there is no problem with an 8kbps voice stream. But why not demand a pair of 64KBps streams or 6 channel audio? I've been accused of being idealist but I am a pragmatist since I don't believe anything complicated can work. We are taught that there are no simple solutions to complex problems yet there is nothing simpler than the Internet. Asking for more special treatment be it QoS, Broadband or Faux-Openness is seductive but it cedes the future to the incumbents. Instead we must focus on simplicity in the captive segment at the first mile. {See my previous message for separation comments} PS: Is First Mile (or even Last) an acceptable idiom or do should I say Kilo? [ I have been, ever since I went to the FCC, using the term first mile (kilo) to distinguish the problem from the traditional ilec attitude -- we deliver to you what we want (the LAST mile) as opposed to the internet attitude and the users one -- we supply and get -- the first mile djf] Bob Frankston http://www.Frankston.com ------ End of Forwarded Message ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To unsubscribe or update your address, click http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on Coalition Asks FCC to Ensure End-to-End Dave Farber (Dec 15)