[Chapter-delegates] Article in The New York Times

Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl at gih.com
Wed Mar 19 09:16:35 PDT 2008


Dear Sivasubramanian,

I have read your email with interest and wanted to try and add my comments 
to a few of your suggestions, if you would allow me. For the sake of keeping 
my reply as short as possible, I'll look at your points in turn.

> But what I have talked about in my mail is about unnecessary router
> hops (that happens when the route of data transfer from point A to
> point B is circutious. If it makes sense, compare the flight path from
> Delhi to San Francisco (assuming a direct, truly non-stop, not even a
> fueling stop flight. It is near-linear. But what happens when it comes
> to data transfer? Is the distance minimal ?

Routing strategies are numerous, notably due to peering from network to 
network, costs, congestion, etc.
In fact, the forward journey of a packet might not be the same as the return 
journey, ie. asymmetric.
I fail to understand your point about traffic going around the globe. Are 
you arguing that having traffic from A to B in Delhi pass through a router 
in San Francisco is a waste of resources? If it makes financial sense to the 
ISPs, it isn't. It is really their choice to do so.
In understand your point that resource-wise, less routers & telco equipment 
along the way means less carbon footprint. But is it really? You would then 
need to look at carbon footprint on a wider scale, ie. source of energy, 
etc.
I refer you to Bill St. Arnaud's excellent blog on those issues:
http://green-broadband.blogspot.com/

Technically speaking, the Earth can sustain way more Internet traffic. Plans 
are being implemented by several large corporations to relocate servers to 
sites with access to cheaper (and greener) energy. I refer you to Google's 
recent Datacentre in Oregon.
I'll go as far as saying that the amount of traffic we have seen so far on 
the Internet is nothing compared to what's going to be implemented tomorrow. 
And we have one thing going for us in the right direction, that is, the 
drain on the earth's resources to increase network capacity is way lower 
than to increase road capacity. Internet congestion is likely to slow down 
traffic electronically, whereas road congestion dramatically increases 
pollution.
IMHO, both sides of the argument are using excessive fear tactics to scare 
law-makers into setting down laws that will regulate traffic in the future. 
The Internet has so far been a cash cow for some information providers, with 
telecom carriers believing it is at their expense. What debate you are 
seeing today is an attempt to modify the equilibrium of the Internet's 
billing model - by force.

[...]

>
> The concern about environmental impact might be a bit fetched, but it
> could be one of the aspects that a comprehensive study might take it
> as one of the terms of reference.

Such a study might prove to be very expensive indeed (you are speaking about 
the world here!), and might prove to be out of date by the time it is 
published, such is the pace of change on the Internet. Back in 1996 we used 
to say that an Internet Year lasted 3 months. I frankly do not know long an 
Internet Year lasts now. Suffice to say that there is so much happening 
simultaneously worldwide that it would require a lot of ressources to 
analyse.

> There needs to some balance. There are ways by which balance could be
> brought about. There could be creative ways. What if all video and
> audio is moved to the TV screen by cable ? ( I am not sure if it would
> make any difference, but a seperation of gaming/movies/music from the
> "traditional" internet content is technically feasible considering
> today's trends of online Video portals tying up with Television/cable
> content providers. If online music and video and games move to the
> realm of interactive TV screens ???

The trend is for the integration of all media services. It makes sense 
economically speaking. Technically possible and already implemented. 
Barriers are commercial & legal. The current debates (sadly turning to wars, 
IMHO) about Network Neutrality are brought by the massive increase in 
traffic expected when so much video content gets lugged around the Internet. 
The Internet world of everybody being nice to each other is sadly over. 
Today we are looking at big bucks for the future, hence the current frenzy. 
Let us make no mistake that the result of those debates and the path taken 
by the US will *define* what corporations will be the wealthiest & control 
information in the next 10 years. I cannot emphasize how important those 
discussions are.

In a way, I agree with your suggestion for a comprehensive study of the 
Internet, but can't see what benefits would ISOC gain out of it and how ISOC 
would implement such a study. In an ideal world, yes, but we now live in a 
commercial world that is about to be hit with a wave of regulatory 
frameworks due to the fact that it was totally unable to ensure its own 
fairness.

Warm regards,

Olivier

-- 
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D.
E-mail:<ocl at gih.com> | Tel:+33 (0)6 14 65 35 37 | US Fax:+1 (240)214 0440
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html & http://www.nsrc.org/codes/country-codes.html










More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list