Technology for Mortals

Hey George:

Been a while, there is one thing I wanted to say after reading two or three blog posts from you against net neutrality still.

1. Even after Net Neutrality bills are passed(trust me, it will pass in one shape or form), prioritized network will still exist. The point is that the “prioritizing” algorithm should take no input from price discrimination. I cannot stress enough of this. One reason why the Republican party and the telecommunication companies hate net neutrality is that it prevents them from setting up tiered service levels based on how much money you throw at them. While in life, you can argue that people with money often get “prioritized” services, it is true. However, in the context of network, or in the context of an “open” network and democratization of information, where service prioritized to one party inevitably mean service is de-prioritized to another, there really isn’t much difference between that and racial segregation. Really. Think about it. If the telecoms have the power to prioritize based on price tiering, then it is in the interest of the telecoms to also keep the “supply” short, so that resource contention favors higher levels of price discrimination. The net neutrality bill is really about preventing dominant market forces from discriminating against new potential competitors by price gauging limited bandwidth supply, thus limiting innovation.

2. You are trying to argue that reasonable discrimination should be allowed. Those are two words that don’t go together. What kind of discrimination in your opinion is reasonable? The only form of discrimination is based on perceived economic value of the packet representing whatever digital information it carries, then the perceived economic value would differ between who is looking at the information. Arguably, in an open network, one cannot prove that there is lesser value for porn than maybe a useless spam email. The network doesn’t care what the bits represent.

All in all, QoS will always exist in network infrastructure. Net Neutrality will prevent price discrimination in QoS algorithms. That is all there is to it.

Still up at night

1. The telecom business model is heavily based on overselling. In that context, the value for “higher priority” is inherently correlated to capacity constraint. Your argument that “price discrimination would yield much better average performance per dollar” is only viewing it from the perspective of the Telecom provider.

I have no interest in politics. Net Neutrality is a morality issue, not a political one.

2. I read your article. I don’t think that segregation based on “realtime” requirement is a reasonable discrimination model. There is no way to say that the information being transmitted through P2P or FTP protocols have lesser “time value” than the VoIP protocols. Telecom should not have the power to discriminate based on protocols because again, as I have said before, the network shouldn’t care what the bits represent. It is a tough concept to understand, because VoIP right now is generating the highest revenue per bit right now due to the Cell Phone industry. So technically, current QoS model based on “realtime” requirement is in fact a price discriminating engine, because the VoIP packets are worth more to the Telecoms than someone getting porn in P2P networks.

I am going to bed. To end this post, I truly believe that an open network should not care what the bits represent, and certainly do not discriminate based on what the Telecoms think is worth the most per bit to send through the pipe. The true problem lies in the non-determinism caused by overselling and over subscription on capacity, an issue the ISPs would have to solve in their business models.

@TS

How many ways do we have to skin the same cat?

Legislation against “Tiered Service” already exists. I am trying to actually dig up the case in the South were some one was tried and convicted of blocking access to a series of websites.

This is a bunch of crap which continues to brew with conspiracy theorists, thinking that they know the world is going to end. There is another bunch that thinks in 2012, that the world’s population is going to be wiped out by the wealthy and ofcourse, the world’s poor is going to suffer. The only probably is if you wipe out the poor, then who are the rich going to get to work for them.

If Net Neutrality takes over and starts blocking all of these web sites, who is going to stop some one from creating a new medium which offers all of these services for free.

I would start creating my own backbone from my very own home. Other people would try and do the same, proxying site after site to get where they want to go.

@Nucrash:

You don’t even know what Net Neutrality is. “Blocking access to websites?” LMAO

@George Ou:

Prioritization only has value if capacity is restrained. And in the real world, capacity is always restrained because of overselling, so QoS algorithm based on price tiering is not suitable for a open network. You still refuse to tackle the fact that “bits are all the same, why should the telecom discriminate based on their interpretation of what the bits represent?” That’s the fundamental issue here. Network prioritization should be protocol independent and application independent, treating each packet deterministically, in other words, optimized for Fair Throughput. (Like the CFQ scheduler in Linux, not you know, deadline scheduler.)

@TS

Just quoting from the “Tiered Access” model as the Net Neuts explain it best.

From Wikipedia, “neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.” Blocked sites would fall under that definition.

As for as packet prioritization, based on application or protocol would be ideal. I could care less how fast a web page loads, but a VoIP packet, or a Gaming packet, that needs to have less latency. Peer to Peer and some of the other file transfer protocols can take a back seat as far as I am concerned.

To have a real world analogy, nucrash:

The internet is like the highway infrastructure, and packets are like cars. And the ISPs are like the toll booths managing their small section of the highway.

Now, it is in the interest of the toll booths to maximize revenue. Say the toll is $1 per car. Is it alright to charge say $5 for a Ferrari to get a prioritized passage to the same highway? You can say that people who drive fast car require “low latency”, but the power to discriminate based on type of car should not be in the hands of the toll booths.

Coming back to the VOIP/gaming needing low latency. In the grand scheme of things, you cannot argue that your VoIP packets and god forbid, the WoW packets are of more time value compared to other people’s packets. It might be of value to you, but other people’s packets also have their own perceived values.

What really comes down to is that the toll booths’ insatiable desire to maximize revenue have come at the cost of those who are delayed in their “Fords”. If you don’t see how this analogy applies to Net Neutrality, I would be very disappointed.

@TS

That is a great example.

The first problem with this example is that, some one paid above and beyond for their Ferrari, while people didn’t pay for their “Ford.” They paid for access to the high way with taxes, but they didn’t pay on a first come first serve basis. They merely paid for access. Also, while they have the bulk of the traffic, that doesn’t mean they should always go first. Next you will try and tell me that an ambulance should get the same access response as one of your “Fords.” After all, who cares if some one else dies, we all have to be perfectly equal and fair.

Second problem with your analogy is we are talking about 1 in 100,000 packets. I can’t tell you what number of VoIP packets are P2P packets, or even the number of WoW packets to P2P packets, but some how I imagine that the number is far far less than Ferraris to Fords. The amount of time for the Ferrari to speed by is also much longer than what it takes for a VoIP packet to zip through the toll booth. With that in mind, why are we arguing again. By the time we posted, trillions if not more packets have traveled across the web, millions of those might be VoIP packets or WoW packets. I doubt you would notice if they took less time to zip by, but I am sure gamer would notice verses a P2P downloader.

Maybe you haven’t had to work with a cable network that has become so clogged with P2P users that the connection has become useless, I have. This frustration happens every semester when school starts back up. Five thousand college students come to a small town of 10,000 people and then the cable network gets slammed for the remainder of the semester. The problem isn’t the down stream, it’s the upstream every time. Too many people trying to download the latest movies through their new cable connection and they don’t realize that having eighty torrents going at the same time won’t help them get their warez any faster. So while I do see your point of view, I do think that some management needs to be done, I would trust the ISPs to have some idea on what content should be prioritized and would hope that abuse of this would be met with dire consequences. For example, if this were used to push Advertizing ahead of all other content, then we might have some problems. But as long as our list of priorities are that of services that “require” lower latency to function, then I don’t see a problem.

@George Ou
The result is that P2P ends up getting 0% bandwidth because the user is sick and tired of it ruining their gaming/VoIP experience.

You are right that if VoIP only uses 1% of total capacity, the packets damn well should be delivered with a strict deterministic fashion. If that number is really right, then why is P2P throttled, and where did the rest of the bandwidth go? Oh right, it ended up in the pockets of the ISPs.

You are still not bringing the true problem to light, George. The ISP wants steady revenue stream in the form of monthly payment, while having no intention to truly deliver the bits in a deterministic way.

The correct response is to increase capacity in terms of upgrading to Ciena’s 100gbit fiber backbone instead of throttling P2P or other high bandwidth intensive apps to 0%. The problem is that ISPs oversubscribed to 5x the number of cars the highway can handle. Instead of building out more roads, ISPs are dictating who can go first based on revenue per bit, favoring low bandwidth applications.

I have no interest in politics as I have said. Fundamentally it is a moral issue and George, your position on this issue has been clear. The only question that the readers are unaware of is how much per article you are getting paid by “digitalsociety”. See, that’s the ultimate motivation for you. So if possible, why don’t you enlighten us?

Really it doesn’t matter that much. Net Neutrality will be here within the time frame of current administration, there isn’t a single thing you and I can do about it.

George Ou:

Threatening to delete my posts is not exactly helping your position.’

Before you delete this thread, you still failed to answer the one question I asked from the first post:

bits are the same, why does the telecom think they should have the power to prioritize based on their interpretation of what the bits represent?

Read the recent FCC recommendation for Net Neutrality rule #5 and #6.

http://consumerist.com/5364181/fcc-proposes-new-awesome-net-neutrality-rules

5) Non-discrimination — broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications.
6) Transparency — providers of broadband Internet access must be transparent about their network

Number 5 and 6 are precisely what I am talking about here. In fact prioritization of VoIP application isn’t universal. Look at Skype, a VoIP vendor, who is a supporter of Net Neutrality. Skype is currently being limited by Apple to limited VoIP functionality on the ATT network. So even within VoIP applications, discrimination occurs to help strategic market dominance by AT&T.

So, delete this post if you want. But I hope that before you do that, answer my first question.

TS :
There is no way to say that the information being transmitted through P2P or FTP protocols have lesser “time value” than the VoIP protocols.

I don’t typically agree with George on this issue, but this statement is one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve seen, and it’s indicative of the problem with the most vocal (and ignorant) net neutrality supporters.

Voice is always more important than P2P. P2P doesn’t require low latency (if it does you chose poorly). Voice typically does.

Furthermore, even if you have some P2P application that does require higher priority, there is NO REASON that it be flagged as such….or are you arguing that some Torrents are high priority? I love torrents, but it’s never higher priority than VOIP (which I don’t use). If some TV show I downloaded arrives 10 minutes later, that’s OK, because a 911 call is ALWAYS important.

I’m concerned about charging for priority, but prioritizing packets is smart and good for consumers….only an idiot would actually argue that P2P is as important a phone call.

Then again, what can you expect from the radical elements that are now arguing that wireless networks shouldn’t be allowed to ban apps like slingbox. Sorry folks, but my phone calls are more important than your desire to watch The Biggest Loser on your phone. Get a DVR or unpack your VCR.

@Notgonnatel

First of all, P2P has a very negative public image due to its usual association with piracy. Secondly, there is a very important technical issue that George Ou and the telecoms don’t want people to know: that is, all the technical jargons like Jitter, latency, prioritization, QoS are bandaids to the true problem of capacity restraint due to ISPs oversubscribing users.

I was sarcastic when I said that the ISPs oversubscribed 5 times the cars than the “highway” can handle, only to see George Ou come back and say 20x oversubscription.(That proves my point exactly). George Ou conveniently said that it is done to cut the customer’s bill. It is a half truth. For someone who understands the bandwidth market, the current broadband price of roughly $40 per 5mbit or about $8 a mbit, you can easily a 24×7 dedicated, burstable multihomed connection on the market. So what is really happening is that the ISPs put 20 people on the same line, and expect them to share a very limited amount of bandwidth, bandwidth that people paid for. Then with prioritization of low bandwidth application first, the ISPs can smooth over the 95% bandwidth utilization curve, reducing their end of the bill at the expense of the high bandwidth users.

Having said all that, if the QoS algorithms ISP used are CFQ like, and if someone else’s high bandwidth application is slowing down your VoIP calls, then it is a capacity issue. And your example of banning Slingbox over VoIP on wireless 3G networks might sound reasonable, it actually is not. Other people who paid 50 dollars a month to get a 5GB limit on the 3G network does have a right to use up the anemic 5GB worth of data however they want to. It is not like they can slingbox 24/7 with the 5GB limit in place. So your argument that Slingbox users can’t use their 5GB data because it slows down your calls is discriminating the wrong people. You should ask your 3G provider why the heck they can’t provide the contractual service they said they would provide. In fact, your VoIP bits are theoretically not different from other people’s Slingbox bits, especially if both you and other people are paying the same 50 a month for a 5GB limit on your phone.

In the end, if people paid for 5GB data on their phones, the wireless ISP has every reason to honor that service commitment. If people paid for a 5mbit connection, the ISP has every reason to honor that service level. Jacking around with prioritization is simply a bandaid to the true problem the ISP doesn’t want people to know about. That is actually not the worst. AT&T is using excuses to totally shutting down innovation and natural market competition in the case of Google Voice and Skype on the iphone and Slingbox, and countless developers of Iphone apps.

George, I don’t follow what the option 2 services are getting subscribers, aside from a higher cap.

However, my current concern deals with charging content providers for prioritized distribution to the ISPs customers (i.e. me).

If a case can be made for it, then so be it, but so far I don’t see the case for it. And while I absolutely believe that allowing traffic management is important, and makes sense, I also know that Lafayette Louisiana managed to build the first phase of their Fiber to the Home (not node) in a little over a year and provide a symmetric 10 Mb/s connection, with 100 Mb/s P2P within the network for $28.00/month with no caps.

If they can do that, then the complaints by broadband providers, which include the local incumbants, AT&T and Cox, ought to be able to do the same without crying that they must create new forms of revenue to finance the build out. How can it be so tough for Verizon, when they charge significantly more for than LUS (and for non-symmetric bandwidth, which surely increases their subscriber capacity and the profitability of the service)?

This is made obvious when one sees AT&T/Cox lowering their prices (though both require a long term commitment, while LUS does not). Cox’ decision to build it’s first Docis network in Lafayette is a directly result of Lafayette’s FTTH project and there are rumors that AT&T is considering upgrading their network as well.

So yes, I’m against banning the management of network traffic, but I also distrust the cable and telecom companies (and I work for a Telecom).

The more radical elements of the neutrality are either completely ignorant of networking or worse just don’t care. OTOH, the ISPs are overselling. And they claim they can’t afford to upgrade their networks if they don’t charge more for these new services…..and yet I go back to good old Lafayette…..somehow they managed to do just that….provide the community more for less.

@TS
“QoS are bandaids to the true problem of capacity restraint due to ISPs oversubscribing users. ”

TS, WTH is you’re problem. Are you suggesting that highways should be built so that they can handle every car going in the same direction at the same time (e.g. a hurricane is on it’s way to NOLA)? That’s just ******* dumb. Overselling is a problem, but QOS is always needed. If my P2P get’s delayed a couple of seconds, it doesn’t ******* matter. I’m not going to notice it. If my VOIP your VOIP gets stuck behind my download, you won’t understand what the other person says, or they won’t understand you.

In your world, apparently, there are no traffic lights. Every street has enough lanes for every car and they have an overpass or underpass for each intersection.

That’s never going to work. Even in Lafayette, they will have to manage traffic. It may not happen today, but it will happen, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If implemented correctly, it’s completely transparent to the end user. When you build a new road or highway, at first, it’s relatively empty…but eventually cars fill the road and you have to manage that traffic.

RE: Slingbox.

Slingbox will eat up capacity. It’s not about the bytes downloaded, it’s about causing a traffic jam. What you want may work some day. I hope it does, but right now, there is no way it can be done without affecting other data subscribers and/or voice subscribers.

And FYI, P2P over a cellular network would absolutely kill wireless data for all users. There’s only so much spectrum and that spectrum only has so much bandwidth in a given area. Ideals are fine, but at some point, you need to join the real world.

@Notgonnatel:

Thanks for calling me ******** dumb. That was a very nice way to argue things right? People either get it or they don’t. You are still using the negative connotation of the P2P application as an excuse to say that slowing down other apps doesn’t ******** matter. The way I read the FCC recommendation here:
http://openinternet.gov/read-speech.html

My interpretation is that there are legal contents through P2P protocol and there are illegal contents through P2P protocol.

“As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and applications — not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences.” – FCC chairman

So it is perfectly ok for ISPs to complete shut down illegal content traffic through P2P. While legal content through P2P should go through undiscriminated. As I have said, it is not the protocol that is the problem. I haven’t P2P’d in almost 4 years. But logically, if someone is P2Ping latest open source Operating Systems or legal content like videos through Hulu, then clearly the ISP has no legal right to throttle should the rules pass(and it will).

Slingbox and P2P will definitely eat up capacity. VoIP’s data requirement is lower. Let’s do some math. With 7.2mbps 3G, you only get a peak throughput of 2mbit or so in real life. That’s about 15MB per minute. Or 900MB per hour. So current 5GB data limit would only afford about 5.5 hours or so Slingbox usage in a month. Divide that over 30 days, that’s roughly 10 minutes or Slingbox usage per day. As I have said before, it will only take roughly 2 5-minute youtube videos a day to fill 5GB. VoIP is usually 128kbit or less. So roughly a 10 to 1 ratio between VoIP and Slingbox bandwidth usage. However, you talk on the phone far longer than 10 minutes a day right? So I would love to see your argument why you should use say 2 hours a day worth of VoIP but other people can’t use 10 minutes a day worth of Slingbox. This kind of discrimination just doesn’t fly in the face of OPEN internet.

TS, I’m not using the negative connotation of P2P. P2P eats up as much bandwidth as it can get (unless the end user is specifically limiting it. If you use Octoshape to listen to internet radio, it will take up a buttload of upstream bandwidth, if it’s available. I’ve seen it at work (and last time I checked, there’s no way to limit it).

If you’re using a torrent, it will use 100% of your upstream if it’s available, and if your ISP doesn’t limit your upstream, it will take the entire pipe (assuming there’s enough demand on the other end).

If ISPs do what you want, they’ll just have to decrease your bandwidth. OTOH, if they use QOS and other techniques properly, you can use P2P, but a VOIP (as well as most web pages), would have a higher priority.

Why is that so objectional. Is it absolutely vital that every P2P packet arrive as soon as possible? In 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases, the answer is absolutely not.

Linux distros are irrelevant. Linux makes up a minuscule percentage of the desktop OS market (those operating servers are rarely in a hurry to switch to the latest release) and an even smaller portion of the P2P market.
What’s more, exactly how does an ISP determine what type of content is in a given torrent? These are random packets coming from all over the world.

As for the slingbox p2p issue, I answered this before, but I’ll the same thing again:
They eat up bandwidth. It’s not the total BITS. Highways can transport far more car in a day than they currently transport. What they can’t handle is more cars during rush hour. Wireless networks can’t support all of those bits at one time…..if you spread them out over the period of time that all of those VOIP calls take place, then you could.

If the sling app was running at 2AM, it wouldn’t be a problem. During periods of high usage, it’s a problem. Wireless networks aren’t designed for that type of use. It’s like the people who bitch that MS Vista doesn’t work with netbooks. The OS was designed under a set of assumptions. One of those wasn’t that people would buy machines with less powerful CPUs and less memory, but 2 years after RTM, that’s exactly what happened.

Maybe we need all of our wireless networks redesigned for that use, much like Windows 7 was reworked to handle the case where a computer is underpowered and has less RAM. But right now, they aren’t, so you live with the network you have, which means apps that consume a lot of bandwidth aren’t allowed.

You are a neutrality radical, and we’re never going to agree. You do more to push me towards George’s position than George ever could.

@notgonnatel

There are a lot of things from your post that are just retarded.

1. Linux distros are irrelevant? I use both Linux+OpenSolaris on servers. It is what’s powering the Internet. I don’t like winbloze retards telling me Linux+OpenSolaris is irrelevant.

2. If the highway can’t handle more cars during rush hour, it still does not have the right to let any particular cars to go through first right? Everyone waits during the rush hours. Why doesn’t that apply to net neutrality?

3. Again, you don’t have any issue telling slingbox users to use it at 2AM. Why don’t you call people at 2AM? Oh yeah, people are probably sleeping. Why then do you expect Slingbox users to stay up at night to use an app? Even if people want to stay up at night to use Slingbox, they can’t, since the app isn’t approved on the 3G network. Ooops.

4. I don’t give a crap whether I push you toward George’s position. It is a morality issue. If you don’t see it, well, it is not going to matter in a few months when the law passes, then George Ou and you can bitch about the law.

My arguments silly? That’s coming from someone who can’t answer the one question I asked of him in every post:

“Bits are the same, why does the ISP think they can prioritize based on their interpretation of that the bits represent?”

So why don’t you answer that question first before calling someone silly?

I said this: according to the statement from the FCC chairman, illegal content through P2P protocol should not be subject to net neutrality. That means ISPs can completely shut down bittorents that are distributing illegal content. On the other side of things, bittorents of open source software and applications should not be slowed down. I never said anything about speeding up the P2P protocol, all I said, is that under net neutrality rule #5, legal P2P packets should enjoy CFQ like scheduling.

Look at what you said, George, sometimes I wonder if you read your own statements or not. Let me point out some errors in your logic, it is kinda embarrassing:

1. You don’t understand the business model of Amazon Kindle at all. Amazon isn’t an ISP. Kindle fundamentally makes money from the digital ebook sales. What the heck are you talking about when you argued that ISP should charge the content providers? Content providers pay their end of the bandwidth bill in their colocation datacenters. End users pay their end of the bandwidth bill too in a monthly fee. There is no “free shipping” involved here.

2. Everything after that Amazon Kindle argument is just junk and full of indirections. CDN and distributed architectures are not relevant to the issue at hand.

3. Then you argued that “prioritized edge caching is the only form of prioritized content deliver that actually works”. Nice one. Only if you knew that edge caching is a proximity optimization, not a packet-level discrimination. Proximity is not relevant to net neutrality.

4. Then you argued that prioritization wouldn’t make your own website faster because it is a $50 colocation server. I think Http server is a very small pie of the net neutrality issue. The true issue is the discrimination against application types and protocols.

5. Then you argued that “Prioritizing VoIP over P2P does NOT slow P2P down one bit”. That is false. That statement is only true if there is no capacity constraint, which we already know is 20x oversubscribed.

I really don’t want to tear your post apart. Net neutrality isn’t a fantasy that all websites run at the same speed. Net neutrality is a goal that ISPs don’t discriminate based on application and protocols. When it passes, Apple and AT&T can no longer discriminate against Google Voice, Slingbox, Netflix, Skype, and other countless useful applications from using their network. ISPs cannot throttle your application if your application or content is legal. Of course, to deliver that, ISPs will no longer be able to traffic shape legal applications, and users will be able to freely access more content. Over-subscription ratio will decrease, and ISPs will be forced to actually do some “honest” business by delivering what the contract said they would deliver. No fuss, no lies, and innovation and new digital abstractions will flow, and create new jobs. You get the point.

George,

You seem to think that ISP’s are like you, and that they are interested in maximizing network performance for the sake of improving the user experience.

That comes from you failing to realize that ISP’s consider the network to be a revenue source, and that ***all*** other network considerations are subordinate to making money from the network. They are not interested in maximizing performance for anyone ***UNLESS THEY CAN CHARGE FOR IT*** Once ISP’s can charge a fee for prioritization, they are then incentivized to degrade performance for everyone that does not pay them an additional fee.

Once you grasp that simple concept, you will understand why preventing ISPs from charging for prioritization is actually a good thing.

Just so you’re clear on this:
1. Network prioritization for applications requiring low latency is not a bad thing.

2. Allowing ISP’s to determine what data should get prioritization and allowing them to charge for it is a bad thing.

@TS

What does Linux and Open Solaris have to do with P2P? Alright, so you have to wait a few extra minutes for your distribution to download. Oh dear, perhaps we are all gonna die because you didn’t get the latest version of Fedora Core. I think even the lamest of e911 calls would rank before the most urgent of Solaris torrents.

Your point about oversubscribing is that they should cut the costs because of the subscriber-ship is oversold by 20x the available bandwidth, well that’s pretty much what they are doing now. I would rather have a $25 Cable bill instead of a $500 cable bill.

Next, I would like to ask, how much “legal” content can you download in a month? I don’t see any cap that would be considered unreasonable. While I know I could probably get my free copies of the Bible across the web, and I am sure that you aren’t running more than 15 Open Source systems in your home that require that much downloading. While, I remember the days of running on the other side of the tracks and trying to max out the cap of my cable modem, any more, I don’t particularly care. I would rather be able to watch streaming TV or talk to my friends in Japan for free verses download the latest kernel just a few seconds faster.

Net Neutrality as you see it is a fantasy. I can tell you from my work place, that not all servers are created equal. The more distance between each one, the more hops a system has to make, the more problems and more latency the end user has. This is just a way of life and you can’t design a network to function otherwise.

@George

1. I agree that the FCC should allow ‘good’ discrimination. However, under no circumstances whatsoever, should any ISP be allowed to charge for it.

2. The problem that is faced is that no one solution ever fits all circumstances. Nor in this day and age can the FCC take years of deliberation to figure out what is ‘right.’

3. I’ll agree that the average user is incapable of performing their own prioritization. But letting an ISP futz with my prioritization scheme should not be permitted. Streaming video might be low priority to you, but it’s pretty darn high for a surgeon doing teleremote procedures.

nucrash :
@TS
What does Linux and Open Solaris have to do with P2P? Alright, so you have to wait a few extra minutes for your distribution to download. Oh dear, perhaps we are all gonna die because you didn’t get the latest version of Fedora Core. I think even the lamest of e911 calls would rank before the most urgent of Solaris torrents.

Linux is an example of legal content. Emergency 911 calls are free right? Even on non-activated cell phones. Hey, if the ISPs want to give priority over to free packets, I am all for it

Your point about oversubscribing is that they should cut the costs because of the subscriber-ship is oversold by 20x the available bandwidth, well that’s pretty much what they are doing now. I would rather have a $25 Cable bill instead of a $500 cable bill.

I do realize that oversubscription is the business model for ISPs. But when revenue is steady in the form of a monthly payment from customers, they should not limit their end of the obligation to slow down. If it is slow, it is a capacity issue. Put more capex into the infrastructure, build more roads.

Next, I would like to ask, how much “legal” content can you download in a month? I don’t see any cap that would be considered unreasonable. While I know I could probably get my free copies of the Bible across the web, and I am sure that you aren’t running more than 15 Open Source systems in your home that require that much downloading. While, I remember the days of running on the other side of the tracks and trying to max out the cap of my cable modem, any more, I don’t particularly care. I would rather be able to watch streaming TV or talk to my friends in Japan for free verses download the latest kernel just a few seconds faster.

How much I download per month and what I download is irrelevant toward the principal of net neutrality. Just from your statement that you would rather watch streaming TV or talk to Japan vs letting someone else download a OS shows a couple of things about you: first you are selfish; secondly, you don’t know what net neutrality is about; third, you are discriminatory toward what people can do with their bits. Funny, I don’t want to get into religion, but in your so called “free bible”, what does it say about “loving your neighbors?”

Net Neutrality as you see it is a fantasy. I can tell you from my work place, that not all servers are created equal. The more distance between each one, the more hops a system has to make, the more problems and more latency the end user has. This is just a way of life and you can’t design a network to function otherwise.

Net neutrality is a fantasy? And the “free bible” isn’t? I recommend that you read the declaration of independence again if you believe that not all servers are created equal. Again, you made the same mistake of indirection as George Ou did, confusing proximity and number of hops with packet level discrimination at the same hop. Two different issues.

@George

What makes you think I want to outlaw business class connections? Letting an ISP charge for implementing QoS on any connection should be banned. Since a business gets a connection with guaranteed bandwidth, how the business implements its own QoS should not be something the ISP has any say over other than as a percentage of the guaranteed bandwidth.

“Either it gets bundled into the baseline cost in which case those who don’t use the extra services will subsidize those who do, or it gets billed at as an extra in which case only those who use the extras pay.”

Do you honestly think that there is an ISP out there that wouldn’t make it almost a necessity to purchase that ‘extra’ capability? If you do, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you can buy.

Just keep in mind this simple mantra that all ISPs have:
If value, then fee.

Repeat that mantra and keep it in mind whenever you consider what your suggestions would mean to an ISP. Remember, an ISP has no interest in their network other than to charge as much as possible for you to use it the way you want or need to use it.

@George

“What you’re advocating is not free QoS, but bundled QoS. I prefer to let the market decide whether something should be bundled or billed separately.”

I never said I was advocating free QoS. I said that ISP’s should not be allowed to charge for it. I’ll qualify that and say that it must not be charged for separately. Just like your auto manufacturers don’t charge you separately for seat belts and lug nuts.

“All connections are shared at some point on the network even if they’re dedicated on the last mile.”

That’s how computer networks operate. If you don’t share at some point, you have a closed network. As we move 20+GB of data across the Internet every day, the vagaries of network issues on a business class connection are not unknown to me.

“It’s only a question of how much sharing there is. Business class Internet connections do charge for QoS today.”

And it costs a pretty penny too.

“No, but they do charge separately for the fancy GPS unit, the integrated DVD player, the bigger engine, the fancy tiers and rims, etc. Why aren’t you advocating a law that bans car makers from charging SEPARATELY for these items like you’re advocating a law that ISPs from charging separately for QoS?”

1. Because there is no law that your items must be included in every vehicle sold. If they were required by law, then there should be no separate charge. Don’t confuse this with me meaning that every ISP must include QoS by law either.

2. For the simple reason that those things that you listed actually cost money to put in. The cost to implement QoS for an ISP is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable. Especially when you consider that any actual costs are amortized.

QoS improves the ISP’s network management. That is, it makes things better for the ISP even if it does nothing for customers. Why should an ISP be allowed to charge customers for something that effectively costs nothing, but improves things for everyone involved, especially the ISP?

Or to put it simply: An ISP will charge for QoS, not because it costs them anything to do it, but because customers perceive value in having it. Remember the mantra – If value, then fee. It’s not: If cost and value, then fee. It’s: If value, then fee.

@George Ou

Routers are a one-time expenditure. Those costs can be amortized over several years.

Your average engineer does not devote more than a small portion of their time to QoS. QoS is generally a “set it and forget it” operation. Yes, it can consume a lot of time during the “set” phase, but either that phase is relatively short or the ISP needs to hire competent engineers.

“Priority on the network is also something that is by definition scarce.”

Which is why I stated earlier that priority should be restricted to a percentage of bandwidth.

“If everyone and every application was prioritized, then no one and no application is prioritized.”

Just what in anything I’ve written would lead you to believe that I meant that everyone and everything should be prioritized? I did point out that what applications you want priority for do not necessarily mesh with what others want priority for.

“Pricing is the only mechanism that ensures the availability of priority.”

Actually, pricing allows an ISP to charge customers for what they should already be doing for their own benefit. I believe I made clear that prioritization offers benefits to an ISP even if they never charge any users for it.

@George Ou

“ISPs aren’t going to this extra level of service for consumers today because they’re not charging for it. They give it to business customers who pay more.”

It’s not a matter of the ISP doing it for the benefit of the customer. It’s a matter of the ISP doing it for the benefit of the ISP and charging customers for actually using it. The cost to the ISP to allow usage is functionally zero, and thus customer fees for usage are nothing but pure profit for the ISP. Again: If value, then fee.

“The market knows how to handle this. We do not need heavy handed micromanagement regulation that tells ISPs how to price goods and services.”

That would be a logical argument if there were actually effective competition in the broadband market. In reality, most locations have limited competition between at most two entrenched players. The cable & phone company monopoly/duopoly that dominates most market areas has little incentive to actually respond to what customers in the market actually want or need. Their pricing is certainly not related to the actual costs of providing services. Their pricing is much more closely related to providing a sufficient profit to make their stockholders happy.

In the absence of an effective marketplace, there is indeed a need for regulation. Even in the presence of an effective marketplace, some regulation is still necessary.

How about we compromise? In any market where there are five or more independent ISPs, any ISP can charge fees for whatever they want. With that many ISP’s in an area, you could reasonably assume that competition would actually occur, and that actual market forces would come into play.