Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to DEregulate the Internet

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Richard Bennett" <richard () bennett com>
Date: August 25, 2009 4:46:09 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re:   H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing  
to DEregulate the Internet
Reply-To: <richard () bennett com>

I don't see how Bob's comment relates to my article. Let's assume,  
arguendo,
that Internet transport and content are separate businesses. Does it
therefore follow that Internet transport has to follow a "bits are bits"
model? It seems to me that the role of transport is to meet the needs of
applications, and "bits are bits" doesn't do that very well. Some
applications want to move a lot of bits for a very low price, some  
want to
move a few bits quite quickly, and some want to move a moderate number  
of
bits with moderate delay. So if we want to have networks that enable  
human
beings to do the things that they want to do, we have to allow them to  
be
responsive to human requirements.

So we have a choice to make: we can impose a doctrinaire mandate on the
people who use the Internet to conform all of thei applications to a  
single
service level in the network, or we can allow the network to serve the  
needs
of the user community.

The Markey bill imposes a regulatory model that was devised for the  
PSTN on
the Internet: the interconnect and QoS provisions come right out of  
the PSTN
world. On the PSTN, QoS is measured in terms of SNR at the the  
interconnects
and the terminal; it's either good or bad, and there aren't different
flavors of it. In the packet network world, QoS is a measure of  
latency, and
isn't a binary, good vs. bad thing. High latency is a good thing if it's
associated with low cost for the aforementioned applications that have  
many
bits to move. And if we follow the Isenberg model, where the network
provides highest-grade latency for all applications, the cost of  
providing
the service goes non-linear in a hurry.

We all know that the Internet (and packet switching in general) is an
advance over the PSTN (and circuit switching in general.) Why do we  
insist
on imposing PSTN mandates on the advanced network?

It really makes no sense to me at all, and I wish someone could  
explain it
to me.

Richard Bennett

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:09 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to
DEregulate the Internet



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <bob2-39 () bobf frankston com>
Date: August 25, 2009 3:43:45 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Cc: <nnsquad () nnsquad org>
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to
DEregulate the Internet

..Usual caveat IANAL..

Something is indeed broken - the confusion between connectivity and  
telecom
and the dysfunctional idea that we should fund the transport by selling
services. While I don't like mandating neutrality I see this bill as a  
step
in the right direction by treating neutrality or nondiscrimination as a
principle rather than an architecture. I also don't like the "access"
framing and "broadband" but that's second-order.

(11) A network neutrality policy based upon the principle of
nondiscrimination and consistent with the history of the Internet's
development is essential to ensure that Internet services remain open  
to all
consumers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and providers of lawful content,
services, and applications.

As I read it neutrality here is more of a principle than  
micromanagement.
The implication is that the business  of offering network transport  
and the
business of offering content services need to be arms-length. At least  
if
you want to call it "Internet access".

I see this bill as a step towards deregulation - telecom regulations  
tend to
be obsessed with slicing and dicing the kinds of services and pricing.
Without being burdened with dealing with each service there is very  
little
regulation - just the assumption that we solve problem by providing more
capacity and that's it.

The easiest way to meet the provisions of the bill is to have the
transport business completely separate from the content business.
That avoids not only the appearance of conflict but also the  
irresistible
urge to think one's own services are necessarily more important than
others'.

Whether the bill passes or not it would be very useful exercise to think
about the implications of such a separation. Reduced to pure transport  
it
would become obvious that we have redundancy rather than competition and
we'd see rapid consolidation into a common transport and, I argue, set  
the
stage for funding as infrastructure.

It would not prevent companies from offering video over their own  
network as
long as they don't call it "Internet" access. I just don't think that  
such a
specialized network business would be viable because, as with VoIP,  
video
can work quite nicely over the common infrastructure, especially if we  
don't
rely on the brittle protocols that characterize today's broadcast video.

Nor should it prevent companies like Akamai that use the network  
rather than
claiming to offer access, from offering their services.

While I would prefer a simpler bill that explicitly said bits are bits  
and
saying that we should fund infrastructure as infrastructure, this bill  
seems
to put the idea of neutrality to good use.

Those who want neutrality get it, those who want deregulation can get  
it by
being neutral.



From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 13:03
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to  
regulate
the Internet and ISPs.


It is a reasonable article djf

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: August 24, 2009 12:09:54 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to  
regulate
the Internet and ISPs.

Dave:

Please also post a pointer to Richard Bennett's excellent analysis of  
the
Markey bill at

http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=180730&print=yes

--Brett Glass

At 09:54 AM 8/24/2009, David Farber wrote:



http://www.freepress.net/files/H.R.3458-7-31-09.pdf

Archives

Archives





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