[Chapter-delegates] Possible collaboration on events

Grigori Saghyan gregor at arminco.com
Sun Apr 11 10:09:55 PDT 2010 

there are two different definitions -
"transmission" of content for TV, Radio and
"access" to content - in the Internet.
Looks both definitions are about same  process. For TV and Radio 
"bandwidth" -  is frequency range  in Hz, for Internet "bandwidth"  - is 
throughput in bit/sec.
In real life frequency range and throughput are linked, and  there is  
Shannon limit, impossible to put unlimited throughput in limited 
frequency range.

For DOCSIS  technology   this limit is present,  and it is impossible to 
provide  unlimited bandwidth (in bit/sec), and it is reasonable
to preserve bandwidth.  Same situation we have for WiFi, WiMAX, 3G, LTE, 
satellite communications - bandwidth  (in Hz) is limited, impossible  to 
provide
unlimited access in bit/sec on demand to everybody, so operators have to 
preserve allocated bandwidth.

In this situation Network Neutrality possible to implement in modern 
networks, based on technologies like FTTB, FTTH, where operator is able
to utilize  not the radio frequency range, but the infrared part of 
frequency range, using for example WDM technology. In this case
possible to have practically unlimted access. Other limitation for 
Network Neutrality in all
types of networks is multicast routing, this limitation based on 
processing power  of routers  (operations per second) and routing  
software.

In this situation is reasonable to define requirements to network, which 
is able to provide network neutrality for all services (protocols),
and sometimes upgrade this requirements. Of course, it is not 
prohibited  to  built and use  other networks without  neutrality 
support, but
necessary to   inform users about  that.

Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM









On 11.04.2010 0:03, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I think we are confusing the public, should we be spending valuable
> resources, money on going out there to redefine the term Net Neutrality?
>
> As for Comcast vs FCC, FCC had a terrible legal team here, the result is
> killing ants with DDT which means now Comcast and other providers to follow
> can use this decision to hamper progress under the blanket of "network
> management practice". This blow to the FCC is so great that I think we have
> no chance on getting the US governments support in the future for IPv6. I
> see that there will be a need in a few years to involve the US government to
> push providers to to IPv6 and the FCC should be in a position to regulate
> something like this, just as they did with cutting off analog TV. The
> current administration realizes that Internet is no different to the
> national telephone system or television.
>
> One of the key arguments used in Comcast Vs FCC by Comcast was "Preserving
> Bandwidth". Can't providers now use this to hamper IPv6 progress? Putting an
> IP address on a device is Network Management, the IPv6 packet is larger and
> I am sure you can tie all this to excessive bandwidth usage. Imagine a
> company doing a video application on IPv6 only. Vendors and providers are
> already complaining that they can't keep up with upgrading all their
> hardware to IPv6 compatibility, do we now have another loophole?
>
> Zaid
>
> On 4/9/10 11:59 AM, "Sally Wentworth"<wentworth at isoc.org>  wrote:
>
>    
>> Just to weigh in on this very good discussion.  As we think about this set
>> of issues, ISOC has chosen not to focus on net neutrality per se but instead
>> to emphasize the objective: open inter-networking.  Joly correctly pointed
>> out that this is consistent with our emphasis on the user-centric Internet.
>> The open architecture of the Internet enables growth, innovation and the
>> delivery of new services and applications.  This is the heart of what we
>> want to preserve.
>>
>> We don't deny that the term "net neutrality" is a popular term of art - the
>> challenge is that it is ill-defined and has come to mean so many different
>> things to many different people.  So rather than becoming embroiled in the
>> debate over the term net neutrality, we've chosen to focus on Open
>> Inter-networking.
>>
>> As to the recent court ruling in Comcast v. FCC, the decision did not go to
>> the merits of network management or to the FCC's proposed rules on Open
>> Internet.  Instead, the ruling focuses on whether the FCC's legal
>> jurisdiction extends to ISP network management practices.  The court
>> determined that the existing law does not give the FCC jurisdiction.
>>
>> There is much speculation on how this will impact pending decisions at the
>> FCC regarding implementation of the National Broadband Plan and rules
>> regarding the Open Internet.  It will be very interesting to see how this
>> plays out over the coming weeks/months.   Happy to keep you informed as
>> things develop.
>>
>> Sally
>>
>>
>> Sally Shipman Wentworth
>> Regional Bureau Manager, North America
>> Internet Society (ISOC)
>> (703) 439-2146
>> wentworth at isoc.org
>> www.isoc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie
>> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:56 PM
>> To: Zaid Ali
>> Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org; David Solomonoff
>> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Possible collaboration on events
>>
>> My understanding is we may use the word but we don't necessarily support the
>> principle, as it a blunt-edged instrument that may inhibit innovation.  ISOC
>> takes the wider view of user-centricity of which open-networking is a vital
>> component.
>>
>> As far as the court case goes it wasn't about NN at all, it was about the
>> power of the FCC to regulate ISPs. It was found that no such power had ever
>> been granted by Congress.
>>
>> j
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Zaid Ali<zaid at sfbayisoc.org>  wrote:
>>      
>>> We would like to but I am a little confused on using "Net Neutrality".
>>> Do we (as ISOC, chapters et al) use the work "Net Neutrality" or Open
>>> Inter-networking? I guess I am a little confused as I have not seen
>>> anything official from ISOC on Net Neutrality since the court ruling
>>>        
>> Comcast vs FCC.
>>      
>>> Zaid
>>>
>>> On 4/8/10 11:32 AM, "David Solomonoff"<president at isoc-ny.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> Do any other Chapters have plans for events covering these hot topics?
>>>>
>>>>      * US Court of Appeals of the DC Circuit decision on net
>>>> neutrality
>>>>        in Comcast v. FCC
>>>>      * Efforts to reform and update the Electronic Communications
>>>> Privacy
>>>>        Act (ECPA)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If so, perhaps the New York Chapter could collaborate/participate
>>>>          
>> remotely.
>>      
>>>> David
>>>>          
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>>
>>>        
>>
>>
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC -
>> http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chapter-delegates mailing list
>> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>>
>>      
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>
>

More information about the Chapter-delegates mailing list