THIS IS A MUST READ -- Simple and Potent and FAULTY Idea . . .

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

I would point out endlessly that regulation and law developed and  
mandated by people who do not understand the network technology will  
doom us all to third world status  djf


Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: January 1, 2009 3:01:40 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Simple and Potent Idea . . .


> <http://www.change.org/ideas/view/recognize_and_secure_standards_for_the_internet_platform 
> > Recognize and Secure Standards for the Internet Platform:

...

This is one of the most anti-innovation ideas I've seen so far this  
(LAST YEAR djf) year.  ;-)

It takes a rather simplistic view of how the net works.  For instance  
it asserts that "Internet" routers "transmit packets independently of  
each other and independently of the applications that the packets are  
supporting."  That assertion holds only for the most primitive of  
routers.  Whether via route caches, flow recognition, fast path vs  
slow path switching, routers try to gain efficiency by recognizing the  
non-independence of packets.  One might argue that this thing would  
outlaw IPv6 because it has a flow identifier that is intended indicate  
when packets are interrelated.

It also asserts that "Internet principles" are commonly understood -  
which kinda makes the mind boggle considering the deep arguments that  
are occupying the IETF about some pretty fundamental ideas.

It also seems to ban NATs by excluding them from that thing it defines  
as the "Internet".

Part (11) of the document is unrealistic about how the internet is  
governed and is a paean to the mythical idea that the internet is  
governed by "consensus".  Having spent a lot of time with ICANN I can  
attest that at that level the net is governed by fighting among  
incumbent commercial interests; we users are mainly relegated to the  
role of observers who will eventually pay the toll.

And, to get a jump on what Brett G. will say, this thing is a recipe  
for financial collapse of many internet providers.  Fed Ex and UPS are  
allowed to charge different amounts for different grades of service  
and for different types of content (e.g. frozen materials), or even  
different distances (China rather than the US), so why should internet  
providers be denied the right to pass on to customers the differential  
costs that are caused by users' differential uses?

I'm seeing a revival of IP multicast at the edges as a vehicle for  
delivery of video content.  I know from my experiences with IP/TV at  
Precept Software and Cisco back in the 1990's that IP multicast can be  
an expensive bear to manage and maintain.  It would make sense to  
charge a bit more for multicast traffic, but this proposal would force  
providers to absorb those costs.

Network neutrality is a great buzzword but it is ultimately a  
meaningless one.  It is much better for us to recognize that there are  
different kinds of internet traffic that engender different costs that  
somebody somewhere is going to have to pay.  It makes economic sense  
to place the burden of those costs onto the person who makes the  
choice to initiate the flow of traffic that is causing those costs -  
that creates a good economic back pressure and helps avoid tragedies  
of the commons.

What I primarily find objectionable are those providers that use their  
near monopoly positions, particularly at the "last mile", to create  
predatory price and access structures so that they give themselves  
better prices and terms than they allow to competitors who are forced  
to use their near-monopoly last mile public-utility circuits.

There is another aspect to this: Many of us here view the internet as  
a system that delivers packets from one IP address to another.  I buy  
my internet services on that basis.

However, the vast majority of the population has come to view the  
internet as a collection of services, primarily web browsing and  
email.  That majority of net users buy those services and don't care  
at all about packet transport.  And many of this group of users do  
want discriminatory services, such as spam filtering and porn blockers.

It's my own personal feeling that the internet is evolving from a  
system of smooth end-to-end packet transport to a system that is  
lumpy.  The first step was NATs.  IPv6 will add a parallel net that  
occupies some of the same wires.  National forces and ICANN's delays  
are creating pressures that may cause DNS to fragment into separate  
systems that have a consistent core part but that have local top level  
domains.  The imbalance in traffic flows, first seen in the imbalance  
of traffic emitted by web users and web serves, will be exacerbated by  
video traffic and this will, in turn, put more stress on peering and  
transit relationships between packet carriers and a greater emphasis  
on traffic engineering.  The time requirements of VOIP may increase  
the number of specialized parallel paths that are constructed for that  
kind of traffic.

There is an idea that one can draw a graph a particular technology on  
the basis of innovation versus time.  Such a graph would often show  
the classical knee curve of rapid innovation followed by a period of  
stability.  The time to apply regulation is not during that innovative  
rise but, rather, during that period of stability.

The internet is still a nascent technology and rapidly evolving.  If  
regulation is warranted, and there is no doubt that some regulation is  
warranted, then that regulation should be focused on clearly defined  
concrete existing problems.  Grand synoptic regulatory schemes for the  
internet are premature.

                --karl--






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