Re: Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: February 26, 2007 1:40:01 PM JST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks

Brett Glass's argument is the most amazing absurdity I have heard of  
in a long time!

"Robbing" the network provider?   Get real.   An end-user node sends  
bits to another end-user node, under the control of a program that  
each end user chose to run - that's not robbery, that's the service  
his customers pay for.

Skype  does nothing magic here.   If you  "call somebody" on your  
Skype connection,  the bits sent are (strangely and wonderfully)  
exactly those bits needed to send your voice to his machine.

Brett's customers have been slaves to his paranoia for far too long.   
If he has any customers left (a fact that his demeanor and ridiculous  
anti-customer behavior leads me to doubt).

David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> Date: February 26, 2007 9:02:05 AM JST
> To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: Re: [IP] Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks
>
> At 12:48 PM 2/24/2007, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> > > Skype yesterday petitioned the FCC to lay the smack down on
> > > wireless phone carriers who "limit subscribers' right to run
> > > software communications applications of their choosing" (read:
> > > Skype software). Skype wants the agency to more stringently apply
> > > the famous 1968 Carterfone decision that allowed consumers to hook
> > > any device up to the phone network, so long as it did not harm the
> > > network. In Skype's eyes, that means allowing any software or
> > > applications to run on any devices that access the network.
> >
> > To me, this is what "Network Neutrality" is all about.  Is it OK for
> > the network provider to limit the applications that can use the  
> > network?
>
> Dave, and members of the IP list:
>
> Actually, as an ISP, I would argue that the answer is "Yes."
>
> While this looks, superficially, like a consumer rights issue, it  
> is in
> fact a bit more than that.
>
> The key thing that one must understand -- and this is a bit  
> technical --
> is that Skype works by "robbing" bandwidth from its users and their
> ISPs. Skype does not buy enough bandwidth to route or connect all  
> of the
> calls placed via its network. At any time, a Skype user who merely has
> the software running -- but is not making a call -- may be using  
> bandwidth
> to connect a call that involves neither the user's ISP nor any of that
> ISP's customers. This is a moderate concern on a land-based  
> network, but
> is of GREAT concern on wireless networks, which are severely  
> constrained
> by tower capacity and the scarcity of radio spectrum.
>
> If Skype, by operating on the wireless provider's network, would in
> effect be consuming the provider's valuable bandwidth and airtime
> without compensation (which really does seem to be the case), the
> cell phone company is perfectly justified in saying, "No." We operate
> a terrestrial broadband network (not a cell phone network), which
> has more capacity. Nonetheless, we do find that we're impacted by
> bandwidth-robbing applications and do find that it is necessary to
> rein them in (though we do not currently ban them).
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com