[Chapter-delegates] [Itu2012chapters] The Internet Days Conference in Stockholm Oct 23-24 - net neutrality session Oct 24

[Veni Markovski]

Vint,
I don't understand why Google does not put a proposal to the WCIT that 
all telecom operators should pay Google (Facebook, Amazon, eBay, other 
content providers, all bloggers, etc.) exactly the same amount they are 
asking to get under the "sender pays" rule? I mean, if there's no 
content, people won't need to connect at higher speeds (or at all), and 
the telecom won't need to invest in building the infrastructure. If I 
were Google, I would have done that.
Further, the root server operators might also ask payment for each 
request; a small amount of course, given the billions of requests per 
hour. Thus the telecoms will be able to report huge volume of money 
going through their bank accounts - in and out ;)

v.


On 10/10/2012 02:43, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 10 okt 2012, at 02:17, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com 
> <mailto:vint at google.com>> wrote:
>
>> I understand that ETNO is now amending its "sender pays" to a version 
>> of "sender pays for better service" that leads one to imagine that 
>> the service for which both sender and receiver pay is "not very 
>> good"... incentives are all wrong here.
>
> It is not only "sender pays"(*) but also a theory that "addition of 
> QoS will make things better", i.e. addition of QoS will increase the 
> ability to send a higher number of ones and zeroes over the same link.
>
> This is a fundamental flaw in the thinking by telco-minded people. 
> Packet based networks do not behave that way(**).
>
> Priority is _only_ effective if a link is full, and what priority does 
> is to influence the decision making process of what packets to delay 
> and throw away.
>
> Now, to be able to do what telco-minded-people are interested in 
> doing, they have to introduce _artificial_ situations where links are 
> full. I.e. the goal is to have invested in bandwidth that is not used.
>
> Artificial scarcity to ensure the prices on the market stays high.
>
> Think about what the average politician thinks about that in a world 
> of market economy.
>
> Specifically as the number of bits to send in the tubes do double 
> every year(***).
>
> The rest of us do believe it is better to add bandwidth as adding any 
> kind of priority might make the experience of using _a_full_link_ 
> better, but only for a very small amount of "too much traffic". Two 
> weeks later (due to increase of traffic) the link is so saturated that 
> it must be upgraded anyways.
>
>    Patrik
>
> (*) I do not know what "a connection with high priority" is. See this 
> document by myself and Gordon Lennox:
>
> http://stupid.domain.name/stuff/circuits.pdf
>
> (**) See this presentation from last RIPE meeting by Geoff Houston:
>
> https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/67-2012-09-25-qos.pdf
>
> (***) Netnod yesterday announced we have 100G interfaces at the IX in 
> Stockholm, and also the first customer. Bahnhof that is an access 
> network provider. But not one of those telco-bell-heads that are 
> members of ETNO.
>
> https://www.netnod.se/bahnhof-becomes-first-netnod-100-gbps-customer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe,
> please log into the ISOC Member Portal:
> https://portal.isoc.org/
> Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20121010/b3217784/attachment.htm>