[Chapter-delegates] News from the front

Sat Jun 10 00:01:30 PDT 2006

Frank:

This is really interesting. ISP's to the more extent would be interested in 
making more money than offering volume free unfiltered connection. For 
instance, In Karachi, Pakistan we have an ISP called "cybernet" which is 
charging less for one type of dialup connection and charging more for 
another kind which is called premium service. The ordinary service is being 
used by the scratch card community whereas the premium service is sold at 
.30USD per hour. Netneutrality has a commercial sense missing on it. Is 
there a way around this commercial edge which should reverse the result?

In concern of the Bruce Perens, I totally agree and think their vision 
should be given a supply chain addendum which makes them content 
networkoperators and the ISP's should be content providers.

Please keep talking?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franck Martin" <franck at sopac.org>
To: "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com>
Cc: "ISOC" <qasim at isocpk.org>; "isoc Chapter Delegates" 
<chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] News from the front

>From my experience here in the Pacific I'd like to see ISPs "obliged"
to offer at least a volume free, unfiltered connection limited only by
the access speed at whatever price they like.

A lot of countries here have only volume based plans, they look cheap,
but are not in fact and then the end point struggle to limit their
bandwidth by disallowing most of their users to do anything. They are
also therefore encouraged not to publish any content on the web locally.
Yes you have internet but you should not use it.

In general I prefer ISPs to not filter any IP datagram but have AUP to
allow them to terminate end points, at least talk to them first so they
have a chance to fix the situation (remove viruses, stop spam, remove
content,...). ISPs would need agreements when they interconnect so that
they know the other ISPs enforce adequate AUPs with their users too
(promiss to investigate and provide a reply).

Other than that it seems to me they can do anything they want and the
market will decide.

I also wonder about NetNeutrality and mobile phones. There was a
"forecast" from Bruce Perens which was something like: The new
generation of mobile phones will take off when the mobile providers
realise they are not content providers.

Cheers

Fred Baker wrote:

> There is not currently a regulatory authority for the Internet. The  ITU 
> periodically applies for the job, and some issues have been  discussed 
> there.
>
> I'm not sure what "definition of the Internet" you are referring to.  My 
> working definition of the Internet is "anywhere IP datagrams might  go". 
> If it is something about routing and services, do corporate  firewalls 
> break the Internet model? Some would say that they do. But  prior to 
> commercial deployment, the Internet in most cases had what  were referred 
> to as "Acceptable Use Policies" or AUPs, which said "if  you are using my 
> network, it is targeted for <something in  particular> and we don't expect 
> you to <do something else>". These  were often of an academic nature, and 
> precluded content that was  considered illegal or detrimental to 
> education. The NRENs do the same  thing today - for one example, see 
> http:// informns.demo.ties.k12.mn.us/sites/8b8b7c58-f0c8-442a-9610- 
> e26539e2cf7b/uploads/AUPmnI2.pdf. Commercial networks often do the  same 
> as well: I use Cox Business Services from my home, because I use  a VPN to 
> "go to" work and Cox's commodity home network in its AUP  precludes VPN 
> traffic. This is to say that a service is available to  me to do anything 
> I want, but not all services available to me permit  me to do all things, 
> and I don't see a problem with that as long as  there is in fact an 
> affordable service available to me that does what  I need done. Coming 
> back to corporate firewalls, as you will note  from my email address, I 
> work for a company named Cisco Systems.  Cisco drops about 70% of email 
> arriving at the corporate firewall,  they tell me. This is based on one of 
> two systems: a reputation based  service that attempts to isolate active 
> bots and not accept SMTP  connections from them, and another service that 
> compares email we do  receive to known patterns and marks traffic that 
> appears to be spam  or virus traffic. In addition, on my laptop, I run a 
> Baysian filter  that further interdicts spam load. Would you argue that 
> services that  reduce the spam load and protect corporate or private 
> assets from  being subverted or attacked break the Internet model? I'm not 
> of that  opinion - speaking for myself.
>
> When it comes to applications "hogging" peers, if it's not attack 
> traffic, then I imagine you are referring to either Internet Video or 
> peer-to-peer file sharing; I would be very surprised to find voice  being 
> limited for other than competitive reasons. I should think that  it is 
> within the rights of an ISP to charge a customer for usage  beyond some 
> threshold or in some way to limit them to some rate. For  example, it 
> might sell tiers of service - for a low price or maybe  even for free, it 
> offers a few hundreds of kilobits per second, for a  stated price it 
> offers more, and for yet another price it offers a  lot more. In the 
> latter, it might use concepts from ftp://ftp.isi.edu/ 
> in-notes/rfc2597.txt, in which is marks some traffic as in excess of  some 
> capacity threshold and targets that as "what to drop first".  Many ISPs 
> give you free access to their web caches but charge some  fee for traffic 
> that goes off-net. In the present Net Neutrality  debate in the US, I 
> don't think that an ISP is required to give  premium service absent a 
> contract to give premium service, but that  it might give premium service 
> to its own servers and standard (the  same as it gives everyone) service 
> to services outside of its  network. That's not intentionally harming the 
> other services, but it  also means that it only helps services that it has 
> an appropriate  contract with.
>
> Am I making sense?
>
> On Jun 9, 2006, at 5:36 AM, ISOC wrote:
>
>> Fred:
>>
>> Im not saying we should not give infinite bandwidth, but to  applications 
>> hogging the overall performance of peers due to which  massive 
>> multimillion dollar networks are being rolled out even in  the US should 
>> be excercised a ROT/ROF. Applications like example  SKYPE / SIP / VOIP 
>> which are also affecting worldwide telcos. It is  true that if we limit 
>> any application , the definition of Internet  would not be the same but 
>> with Global emerging peers having their  policies regulated by their 
>> authorities the debate has risen to  disallow many types of traffic. The 
>> idea to support ROT/ROF (Right  of Tranport / Right of Flow) could create 
>> a total convergence of  Telecom to Internet as it would be adding value 
>> to the existent  idea of the Internet.
>>
>> I have a question, if my local ISP disallows some kind of traffic  or the 
>> National Peering Network, Internet loses its definitions but  it is a 
>> concern which is still within a grey area, is there any  global authority 
>> which can re-regulate in such an event.
>>
>> Your comments please?
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com>
>> To: "Franck Martin" <franck at sopac.org>
>> Cc: "isoc Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>
>> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 4:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] News from the front
>>
>>
>>> I'm not sure what your point is. The first says that broadband is a
>>> bad thing and the chairman of the local ISOC chapter says we
>>> shouldn't be giving people infinite bandwidth. The second says that
>>> broadband is not only a good thing but South Africa's economic future
>>> depends on it.
>>>
>>> Keep talking?
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?
>>>> Article=145685&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29080
>>>> Cut-price Internet
>>>> <http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?
>>>> Article=145685&Sn=BNEW&IssueID=29080>
>>>> Gulf Daily News - Manama,Bahrain
>>>> *...* Referring to Batelco's new Internet packages, which limit
>>>> usage to
>>>> certain thresholds of up to 15GB, Bahrain *Internet* *Society*
>>>> chairman
>>>> Ahmed Al Hujairy said it *...
>>>>
>>>> *http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?
>>>> fSectionId=498&fArticleId=3282874
>>>> Sever the bonds of broadband access - or SA will pay a heavy price
>>>> <http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?
>>>> fSectionId=498&fArticleId=3282874>
>>>> Cape Argus (subscription) - Cape Town,South Africa
>>>> *...* Alan Levin is a specialist in change management and
>>>> organisational
>>>> governance and chairman of the *Internet* *Society* of South
>>>> Africa. *...*
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Franck Martin
>>>> ICT Specialist
>>>> franck at sopac.org
>>>> SOPAC, Fiji
>>>> GPG Key fingerprint = 44A4 8AE4 392A 3B92 FDF9  D9C6 BE79 9E60 81D9
>>>> 1320
>>>> "Toute connaissance est une reponse a une question" G.Bachelard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>>
>>>

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Franck Martin
franck at sopac.org
"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question"
G. Bachelard