Re: Cui bono..? Re: Europeans warned that 'Network neutrality' could raise broadband prices

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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=87

So 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 keep
the 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