Re: It's the Internet Stupid

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh () hserus net>
Date: June 8, 2009 8:46:47 AM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: isen () isen com, ali () circleid com, richard () bennett com
Subject: Re: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid

I'd say it is a tactic that can be used legitimately, or  
illegitimately, by
an ISP no matter what its size is.

I dont agree with Brett Glass on several issues but on this occasion he
happens to be right, there are several legitimate technical and  
operational
uses for DPI and other preferential treatment of packets.

I would repeat my call for improper use of DPI to be targeted rather  
than
DPI either legislated away, or vilified or both.

        srs

David Farber [08/06/09 07:20 -0400]:
> As is often the case, the devil is in the details. djf
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "David S. Isenberg (isen)" <isen () isen com>
> Date: June 7, 2009 5:41:01 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    It's the Internet Stupid
>
> Dave,
>
> For IP per your judgement.
>
> I'm one of the primary perpetrators of http://ItsTheInternetStupid.com
>
> I've told Brett many times, and I'd like to say it again publicly,
> that even though I favor, "prohibit[ing] discriminatory or  
> preferential
> treatment of packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents,"
> I ALSO FAVOR AN EXEMPTION FOR SMALL ISPS. I don't know exactly where
> "small" ends, but if the ISP is independent and serving its community
> well, I wouldn't bind it to network neutrality rules so strict that
> it would put the ISP out of business.
>
> As I say, I've told Brett this many times, but he never seems to
> remember. So I do hope you'll publish this to inform the readers
> of the comment of his that you just published.
>
> David I
> ------------------
> 203-661-4798 (main number, follows me everywhere)
> 888-isen.com (toll free)
> 508-548-5924 (Woods Hole)
> AIM, Skype, Y!IM: david_isenberg
> http://isen.com/blog
> http://freedom-to-connect.net
> ------------------
>
> On Jun 7, 2009, at 5:03 PM, David Farber wrote:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
> > Date: June 7, 2009 4:44:15 PM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid
> >
> > http://itstheinternetstupid.com/
> >
> > Dave, and everyone:
> >
> > Note that this comment to the FCC contains a plea that the FCC   
> > prohibit network management by Internet providers. To wit, it asks  
> > the agency to "prohibit discriminatory or preferential treatment  
> > of  packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents."
> >
> > Sounds good on the surface -- unless one understands its full   
> > implications.
> >
> > Since the information identifying (among other things) the  
> > protocol  being used is part of the packet contents, this would  
> > make it  impossible to prioritize time-sensitive traffic.
> >
> > Likewise, if providers could not route packets to a more direct   
> > connection or send them at a higher speed when they were bound to  
> > or  from specific addresses, it would be impossible for a content  
> > or  service provider which required enhanced performance (e.g. low  
> > latency or jitter) to pay a surcharge for higher quality of  
> > service. This restriction (which would be the equivalent of  
> > prohibiting UPS from offering "red," "blue," and "ground" service)  
> > would kill innovation by precluding cutting edge technologies from  
> > ever seeing the light of day. It would also effectively outlaw  
> > content delivery networks.
> >
> > The comment likewise pays homage to competition, but ignores the  
> > fact that the regulation it recommends would fall most heavily on   
> > competitive providers and likely would force them out of business,   
> > creating a duopoly.
> >
> > There seem to be quite a few people who, perhaps due to  
> > fearmongering by lobbyists for large corporations, seem bound and  
> > determined to straitjacket the Internet with regulations. Alas,  
> > they apparently forget that the Internet could not have existed  
> > were it not originally designed as a loose federation of networks,  
> > each of which was subject to DIFFERENT acceptable use policies and  
> > management strategies. (Were it not designed this way, educational  
> > institutions, government agencies, and private companies could not  
> > have signed on, because no one set of policies could have fit all  
> > of them.)
> >
> > They also appear to forget that the best way to discourage  
> > something  is to regulate it. If the signatories on this statement  
> > truly wish to see universal broadband deployment, they must not  
> > "monkey wrench" this goal by hobbling the rollout of new  
> > technologies and prohibiting innovation.
> >
> > --Brett Glass, LARIAT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> 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




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