[Chapter-delegates] net neutrality vs DNS redirection

[Franck Martin]

Narelle

Having spent some time recently in Australia I understand that  
Australia and in some ways New Zealand have a bad implementation of  
the Internet which is very telco friendly

If I'm not mistaken the Internet backbone in Australia is charged by  
volume only?

This is why USP which is connected to ARNET charge the students for  
each packet

"Toute connaissance est sune réponse à une question"

On 23/07/2008, at 13:40, Narelle Clark <Narelle.Clark at optus.com.au>  
wrote:

>
>> From: Marcin Cieslak [mailto:saper at saper.info]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2008 5:28 AM
> <snippage>
>> One shouldn't define the Internet as
>> "the Web" and the client as the browser.
>
> We're not, but you're quite correct, this type of redirection does  
> indeed seem to rely on the client being a web browser. Thus for it  
> to work (gracefully?) it should be an http redirection only.
>
>> Take instant messaging. Or something like Skype. Or file sharing. Or
>> just plain "ping". Or FTP.
>>
>> All of those applications will be broken if the DNS is
>> broken. I would
>> say, any application _except the WWW_ will be broken. And there is no
>> easy way to fix them!
>
> My understanding of the specific case was that the error string  
> would still be preserved, and that there may be a way to embody this  
> in the response. This then would/should preserve any error flagged  
> to/within an application.
>
> [though I'm tempted to mention that thanks to most hosts not  
> actually responding to icmp echo requests we don't get much icmp  
> working nicely across the net any more anyway... But a separate issue]
>
>> What happens? The status is "NOERROR" that means "The NAME is
>> found, and here is its IP address".
>
> Indeed. This is the risk of a half baked implementation. What I am  
> trying to argue is whether there is any potential to move, and  
> whether there are any possibilities to preserve the integrity of the  
> various services whilst still opening up new services.
>
>> The Internet is not about "consumers" vs. "content providers". The
>> network _works_ because it does not really distinguish between "small
>> guy" and the "big guy". There is only some difference between
>> end-hosts and routers.
>
> Agreed - indeed it is an issue that an inherited model of 'service  
> provision' pervades so broadly, and probably arises from telcos and  
> cable tv companies...
>
> However, I suggest that it may be the vast majority of consumer  
> Internet service contracts will be worded precisely along those very  
> same lines...
>
>> There are more and more innovative services coming. We should not
>> absolutely accept the situation where the "consumer" is
>> confined just to
>> do "some Web browsing" and "maybe email" just because they
>> just pay a $20 monthly subscription fee.
>
> Hmm. That's probably what a lot are actually paying for.
>
> Where have the 'net neutrality' debates been when people started  
> proxying and locking out applications?
>
> Perhaps that is the real issue for the chapters?
>
>> If the service being sold is being called "The Internet",
>> that the way
>> it has to be. Otherwise we would still be in era of CompuServe.
>
> Absolutely agree. Hence my reference earlier to _Public_Internet_  
> IMHO there is more than an implied right of access to universal  
> services, ports and hosts. And yes, across standards based  
> infrastructure that complies with standards.
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> Narelle
> ISOC-AU
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates