<div dir="ltr">We are discussing this on the <a href="http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia">Open Infrastructure Alliance</a> list. As usual Fred Goldstein is adding informed input: I am sure he won't mind me passing it along.<div>
<br></div><div><br><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.800000190734863px"><div class="im">On 9/11/2013 4:52 PM, Dana Spiegel wrote:<br></div><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite">
· To meet end-users' demand for better service quality, content providers may agree deals with internet providers to assure a certain quality of service. Such offers will enable telecom operators to generate additional revenue streams from OTT actors, content providers as well as from consumers who are willing to pay for better or faster services. These revenues in turn, will enable operators to finance investments into network upgrades and expansion.<br>
· Specialised services must not lead to a degradation of quality in the "normal" internet. National regulators will monitor quality of service and may impose minimum quality requirements under Commission control.<br>
<br><div>These 2 paragraphs are the entirety of the problem. "normal" internet? Whats that? "content provider deals"? Isn't that exactly what everyone's fighting against for NN?</div><div><br>
</div>
</blockquote><br></div>But there's nothing wrong with it. First off, there's jack squat quality on the "normal" internet. It works best for very tolerant applications (TCP data), and is not fit for purpose for others (streaming). Second, why not allow content providers to pay? So long as the offering is non-discriminatory (i.e., meets strict antitrust-type guidelines, not a telecom issue), it merely allows more money to upgrade networks without raising subscriber prices.<div class="im">
<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>What's the difference between "enhanced" service for a few that can pay and "degraded" service for some. They are two sides of the same coin?</div><div><br></div>
</blockquote></div>Maybe, maybe not. BUT remember that today's IP-only Internet is attempting to provide multiple services with a monoservice mentality. No can do well. The EU rule at least recognizes the possibility of multiservice networks, offered on a nondiscriminatory basis.<div class="im">
<br><br><blockquote type="cite">And what's the problem anyway with a content provider paying for "enhanced" services? Nothing, except that end users have (almost) zero choice of their choice of providers.</blockquote>
<br></div>It's like an 800 number -- the company you want to call may have one, or may require you to pay for the call, but it's not the telco's problem -- they just offer everyone the options.<div class="im">
<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>And of course, the vertical integration of ISPs completely tilts the field. And end users have no clue about any of this, so all they see is that "facebook" works better than the next competitor. Which it does, but only because it spends 100s of millions of dollars building its infrastructure, instead of just buying preferential treatment by ISPs.</div>
<div><br></div></blockquote><br></div>Vertical integration is what's wrong. Hence the call for a nondiscrimination rule: If you own the wire, it appears that you can not offer polyservice capabilities to your own affiliate without offering them to others. That's as neutral as it gets without going all insane, which to be sure Marvin-style NN would be.<div class="im">
<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>And part of the whole problem here is that this type of payment for "enhanced" service completely destroys any incentive for an ISP to build a better, faster higher quality internet service, and just plow their money into "enhanced" service. After all, if everyone gets really crappy "normal" service, then that's perfectly ok by these regulations.</div>
<div><br></div></blockquote><br></div>You are apparently, like many neuts (including Susan), under the totally wrong impression that faster service solves the problems of traffic management. It isn't true -- faster networks cause bigger queues and delays and losses to critical applications. Games would work probably better across 128k ISDN than across Google Fiber!<br>
<br>So from an antitrust perspective (Steely Neely's expertise), anything *should* be okay so long as it's not used in an anticompetitive manner. This is the opposite of hard-core NN, where all packets are created equal and downloading pR0n thus has effective priority over everything else.<div class="im">
<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>This is the problem with NN. While I used to be a big fan, once I understood things more completely under the hood, and thought enough about market and company motivations, it became clear that NN won't work by operating at the level of the "internet", and was just a band-aid solution trying to close gaping wound inflicted by the classification of internet services as information providers without common carriage.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The only solution is CC. </div><div><span style="text-align:-webkit-auto;border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica"><span style="border-collapse:separate"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><br></div>
</span></span></div></blockquote><br></div>Yes, but it MUST be done BELOW the Internet, not applies TO the Internet. CC on the transmission permits competition for ISPs, and different ISPs can compete on price and service quality. And good quality for some users could be bad for others. Read the original descriptions of internetworking from the 1970s -- the whole idea is that internetworking is routing packets across multiple, dissimilar, sometimes common carrier networks. (I'll post some if you want.) We are confusing internetworks with networks. Treat an internetwork as a network and the whole model is broken.<div>
<div class="adm"><div id="q_1410f0d7f15b9d0d_14" class="h4"><div class="" style></div></div></div></div><span class=""><font color="#888888"><pre cols="72" style="white-space:pre-wrap">--
Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" <a href="http://interisle.net/" target="_blank">interisle.net</a>
Interisle Consulting Group
<a href="tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701" value="+16177952701" target="_blank">+1 617 795 2701</a></pre><div><br></div></font></span></div><br><br>-- <br>---------------------------------------------------------------<br><span>Joly MacFie <span id="gc-number-108" class="" title="Call with Google Voice">218 565 9365</span> Skype:punkcast</span><br>
WWWhatsup NYC - <a href="http://wwwhatsup.com">http://wwwhatsup.com</a><br> <a href="http://pinstand.com">http://pinstand.com</a> - <a href="http://punkcast.com">http://punkcast.com</a><br> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <a href="http://isoc-ny.org">http://isoc-ny.org</a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>-<br><font face="yw-b3b03f93acb29dde874548d979c14638352bd06e-5f7f8a2579651c10383ce0edd5426870--o" style></font></div></div>