Re: New Short Video: "Network Neutrality in 30 Seconds" (Part 1)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Barry Gold <bgold () matrix-consultants com>
Date: August 27, 2008 11:25:54 AM EDT
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Cc: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   New Short Video: "Network Neutrality in	30	 
Seconds" (Part 1)

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> I have a couple questions regarding your assumptions.
> > First, the ISP has to pay somebody else (a backbone provider) for a
> > "hose" (water main) to transmit their packets to the rest of the
> > internet.  If their customers demand more bandwidth, they have to  
> > buy a
> > bigger water main.  And that needs to be paid for somehow: either by
> > raising rates for all their customers, by charging the heaviest users
> > extra, by imposing bandwidth "caps" to encourage the heaviest users  
> > to
> > buy a higher service tier, or some combination.
> First, why does the broadband provider have to pay a "backbone"?   
> Most of the filtering, capping, limiting, etc. is centered around  
> the P2P debate.  Cable-cos and DSL providers almost all have free  
> peering with one another, and P2P is almost exclusively traffic  
> between end users on these networks.  Where did the "backbone" come  
> in?

OK, having read the Wikipedia article on "Tier 1 networks," I'm  
inclined to agree with you.  It appears that most large cable ISPs are  
probably "Tier 2" but peer with each other and hence don't pay transit/ 
settlement charges.

What that means for this discussion is that most large ISPs (cablecos  
and telcos) really don't have external charges as an excuse for  
limiting user traffic.  There's still the other issue I raised, however.

> Also, Verizon and SBC both own Tier One providers, who pay no one.   
> They are what you would cll the "backbone".  (Leaving aside how very  
> wrong that word and its connotations are in this discussion.)  And  
> what do you think the chances are the large MSOs aren't thinking  
> about buying a Tier One or becoming one themselves?

Yes.  I was talking about cablecos, not telcos.  I agree that Verizon  
& SBC/AT&T own their own "backbones" and, as such, any settlements are  
purely "funny money" (internal funds).

> > Second, the current system is asymmetric(4).  The installed fiber/ 
> > wire
> > base can carry multi-terabits downstream (CO to customer) but only  
> > a few
> > gigabits upstream (customer to CO).  This usually applies to the  
> > "hoses"
> > they buy from backbone providers too: a gigabyte of outgoing packets
> > costs significantly more than a gigabyte of incoming packets.
> First, you admit DOCSIS 3.0 is symmetric, and you ignore the DSL  
> providers.

Yes.  I was specifically talking about cablecos.  There is no  
asymmetry for telcos and other DSL providers, and _over the next few  
years_ the assymetry will disappear for cablecos as well.  So my  
analysis applies only right now, not 2-3 years from now.

 But even granting the idea that upstream bandwidth is
> limited, there is no cost associated with it.   The "backbone"  
> providers charge on the greater of in or out, not the sum of the  
> two.  Since you admit downstream capacity is greater than upstream,  
> the cable-cos will not be charge for outgoing bits and realistically  
> never will be.

Again, this is probably true of cablecos/telcos.  Brett reports buying  
asymmetric connections from larger providers, and while I think he is  
biased, I have no reason to disbelieve his first-hand reports.   
Assuming Brett is telling the truth, it seems likely that most other  
small providers will do something similar: pay less for an asymmetric  
connection because it _costs_ significantly less than one that can  
carry the same bit rate in both directions.

Or maybe not.  Perhaps Brett is in an unusual position, having to buy  
his connection "retail" from a cableco rather than directly from a  
Tier 1 or even Tier 2 provider.  In which case, the problem affects  
only him and other similarly-placed (semi-)rural providers.  In which  
case, regulators could (and IMHO should) make appropriate exceptions  
for smaller providers like Lariat and only apply NN rules to larger  
ones.

Remaining, however, is the congestion problem.  If a cableco is  
currently running DOCSIS 2, they have a lot more bandwidth available  
for downloads than for uploads, and customers who make a more  
symmetric use, uploading nearly as much as they download, can cause a  
congestion problem for other users who share the same cable node.  I  
think that is sufficient reason for them to "cap" or at least delay  
upward traffic for the heaviest users.

But, repeating what I said earlier: I think any such limits should be  
based on _quantity_, not on _protocol_.  Just count the packets and  
the bits, and don't worry about what's inside them.  (These aren't the  
bits you're looking for.  They can go about their business.  Move  
along...)




-------------------------------------------
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