Hello folks, please consider endorsing this legislative proposal on net neutrality. It's a bit different from the others you may have heard of . . .
This bill focuses on net neutrality in terms of the IP protocol, rather than the "equal treatment" and "nondiscrimination" application-layer policy approaches you usually hear about. One of the Intro pages from the site above, and the legislative Language, are pasted below. Coverage on Infoworld:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/20/79453_HNnetneutrality_1.html
David Weinberger on Stevens and a Commentary by David Reed:
http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/sen_stevens_and_david_reed_on.html
Here's a link to a research paper by Dave Clark, et al. that identifies the IP protocol as the "spanning layer" that assures innovation across hardware and protocols:
Seth Johnson ---
Two Types of Neutrality So far, much of the argument over "net neutrality" has been over whether service providers should be allowed to favor one application, destination or Internet service over another. This is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits from every type of application. This neutrality is what makes the Internet flexible -- while it also assures uniform treatment of information flow. If this neutrality is not maintained, the Internet will be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be the flexible, open platform that allows anyone with a good idea to compete on a level ground. IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the Internet. The Internet is a set of agreements (protocols) that enable networks to work together. The heart of the Internet protocol is the agreement that all data packets will be passed through without regard to which application created them or what's inside of them. This reliable, uniform treatment of packets is precisely what has made the Internet a marketplace of innovation so critical to our economy. Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet. If they want to participate in the Internet, they need to follow the protocols that have been developed over the course of more than thirty years through consensus standards processes. Nor should they be permitted to single-handedly subvert the authority of the processes that have developed and maintained the Internet. We call on Congress to end the confusion and protect not only the Internet but the tens of millions of American citizens who need to know that when they buy Internet access, they're getting access to the real Internet. Network providers who offer services that depend on violating IP-layer neutrality should be prohibited from labeling those services as "Internet," as their doing so will only undermine the weight of consensus authority presently accorded to the existing standards. The term "Internet" represents specific standards that provide IP-layer neutral connectivity that supports the openness of access and innovation that have been the defining characteristics of the Internet since its origins. To that end, we present the attached draft legislative language and call for concerned citizens and members of Congress to offer their support for passing it into law. ---
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) The Internet is the most successful means of communication ever developed, connecting people of all walks of life across the globe and enabling unprecedented flexibility in applications and unfettered exchange of information and ideas. (2) The success of the Internet is built on the establishment of certain commonly observed principles of practice, expressed in Internet protocols, governing the manner in which transmissions are exchanged. Interoperation among competing Internet providers on the basis of these principles assures that the Internet remains a generic, flexible platform that supports innovation and free expression. (3) This flexible platform, commonly referred to as the IP layer of the Internet, enables users to independently develop innovative applications by devising rules and conventions describing how information transmitted between connected users will be interpreted in order to serve diverse purposes. The vast collection of applications that have been freely created in this manner is commonly referred to as the application layer of the Internet. (4) The Internet protocols that created this architecture have been developed and maintained by globally recognized standards bodies through participatory processes that work to develop optimal engineering designs and establish the consensus necessary for interoperability. (5) Among the commonly-observed principles of practice that govern Internet transmissions are the following: a) Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as "packets," comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b) Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c) Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. (6) These principles governing the IP layer establish a technical behavior that not only assures the platform's flexibility, but also assures its reliability, availability, universal accessibility, and uniform treatment of information flow. The IP layer assures that all applications may compete on a level basis of connectivity, be they commercially developed by a major corporation and made available to millions, or non- commercial applications developed by individuals and offered at no charge. (7) These principles of practice are commonly understood and recognized as features of existing, commonly- observed communications standards defining the behavior of the Internet transport. (8) This settled understanding of the Internet, based on an architecture created by well-recognized standards bodies, leading to user expectations about the accessibility and behavior of the Internet, is what "the Internet" has come to mean to users in the United States and around the world. (9) Network providers who analyze and interpret the types of applications being conveyed within packets at the IP layer in order to offer special service features (including but not limited to prioritized delivery) intrinsically favor particular application designs that they recognize over competing ones. This practice therefore works at odds with the flexibility and other desirable features of the IP layer brought about by the above-described principles of practice. They depend, for their success, on the neutral platform afforded at the IP layer, even as they upset the neutrality of the IP layer to benefit services best offered at the application layer. (10) Network providers who offer special treatment for specific types of applications by identifying the applications being conveyed by packets, presently face competition from providers who provide neutral networks by means of the above principles, as well as from the diversity of applications, flexibility, uniform treatment of information flow, availability and access made possible by these networks. (11) If network providers in the United States were given support in legislation for presenting as "Internet" services that diverge from the above global principles of practice, as they offer special treatment of packet transmissions on the basis of identifying particular types of applications, the result would be to: a) supplant and undermine the consensus authority currently accorded to existing international protocols and standards-making processes; b) impair innovation and competition by undermining the flexibility and other desirable features afforded by the technical behavior of the Internet transport as described above; c) deny consumers the expectation of quality and breadth of service globally associated with the Internet; and d) suppress freedom of speech within the United States, while the people of other nations continue to enjoy unabridged Internet communications; (12) It is in the national interest to a) support the international consensus authority that gave rise to the current IP layer and associated protocols; b) encourage innovation in the applications layer of the Internet through the flexibility, reliability, availability, and accessibility afforded by the commonly established principles of practice expressed in existing consensus standards for the IP layer; and c) assure consumers in the United States that the globally accessible and open architecture of the Internet will be preserved even as some Internet access providers may choose to compete in offering additional features to their customers. SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS. (1) Definitions. As used in this Section: (A) Internet. The term Internet means the worldwide, publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), some characteristics of which include: i) Transmissions between users who hold globally reachable addresses, and which transmissions are broken down into smaller segments referred to as "packets" comprised of a small portion of information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints, and a small set of prefixed data describing the source and destination of each transmission and how the packet is to be treated; ii) routers that transmit these packets to various other routers on a best efforts basis, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow; and iii) said routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the particular application in use, in accordance with globally defined protocol requirements and recommendations. (B) Internet access. The term Internet access means a service that enables users to transmit and receive transmissions of data using the Internet Protocol in a manner that is agnostic to the nature, source or destination of the transmission of any packet. Such IP transmissions may include information, text, sounds, images and other content such as messaging and electronic mail. (2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers. (3) Network providers that offer special features based on analyzing and identifying particular applications being conveyed by packet transmissions must not describe these services as "Internet" services. Any representation as to the speed or bandwidth of the Internet access shall be limited to the speed or bandwidth allocated to Internet access. (4) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of paragraphs 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said:
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructure from the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this mean that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the modem hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *still* "not the Internet" if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the DSL one to mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage? What percentage of cable and DSL access is an "unfair or deceptive act" per the definition of this?
The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way -- the "pro-NN" legislative proposals would essentially say similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby authorizing the breaking of the separation of layers. Our point is, as I think you see, that the merits of the Internet's design are for application flexibility as provided by the nature if the transport, and this design needs to be recognized in policy that intends to enforce neutrality, because that design will be lost as a result of the current discussion. Many observe that present practices already block or disfavor certain applications. We want those practices to be the substance of the discussion, and the discussion should be on the right basis. The proposal is designed to accomplish that (and we believe we have already had that effect -- Snowe and Dorgan may have modified their amendment to the Stevens Bill, withdrawing their original proposal and introducing a simple additional principle to the FCC's list, in response to the concerns we expressed that they would unintentionally actually end up ending NN. And, while common carrier is not necessarily the only solution, we think that the consumer groups pursuing NN settled on a position of going back to common carrier a la Internet II as a result of the concerns we raised). A lot of times, we've found many people looking at NN in more deterministic or behavioral terms, as in rules about practices that network providers must obey. The thing to "get" about this proposal is that if it passed, the result is really to preserve and separate the standards. If everybody proceeded to offer the same services, with little tiny asterisked notices in their advertising that "this is not Internet per US Code XXX" we'd still achieve the critical outcome. We think it's the right position to present, and it's critical that it be presented now. Of course, we can't exactly fault people who are engaged in the discussion at the level of what existing practices are. NANOG folks would either sign out of simple dedication end-to-end purity, or knowing that starting from this place, other issues will be addressed appropriately. And note, it is designed not to legislate engineering -- only to say that what may be called Internet needs to actually follow the standard, described here in abstract terms in terms of the router behavior. This preserves the standards against their being trumped by incumbents who are asserting they can go ahead and offer priced, tiered services, and against letting local peering policies of certain incumbents (or port blocking practices of "consumer internet," etc.) from gaining priority due to their position in the market. Seth Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said:
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructure from the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this mean that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the modem hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *still* "not the Internet" if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the DSL one to mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage?
What percentage of cable and DSL access is an "unfair or deceptive act" per the definition of this?
----------------------------------------------------------------- Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
-- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
Based on this link . . .
. . . it would appear that we were successful in correcting the language of the amendment that Snowe and Dorgan presented: Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) proposed an amendment to the bill to "ensure fair treatment of all Internet content." The amendment incorporated the following non-discriminatory principle: "to promote broadband deployment, and presence and promote the open and interconnected nature of the Internet, a broadband service provider shall not discriminate Internet traffic based on source, ownership, or destination of such traffic as part of any publicly available Internet offering." It was defeated in the Committee with a tie vote of 11-to-11. This language is much, much better than what they originally had. When HR 5217 came out of the House Judiciary Committee, we quickly put out word that all the existing NN proposals, both House and Senate side, would actually end net neutrality if they were passed (less conveniently for the broadband providers than what they were saying they wanted to do, but just as certainly) (HR5273[Markey], HR5417[Sensenbrenner], S2360[Wyden] and S2917[Snowe]). They all basically came down to saying "applications, content and services" were to be either treated equally or non-discriminatorily -- meaning, break the separation of layers by identifying applications that would be treated the same. We recruited support for the legislative proposal at http://www.dpsproject.com and blitzed people both in the movement actively in motion and on the Hill with it, saying they would end net neutrality, that this was the right definition, and using the line: "Packets, not Applications, Content and Services." During the markup for the Stevens Bill, Snowe and Dorgan withdrew their original language and introduced a new amendment, the full language of which I haven't yet found anywhere, but the language quoted in the article above is indeed way better than what they had in their original Bill. Nothing about "applications, content or services." Just "Internet traffic" and "source, ownership or destination of such traffic." My remaining concern is whether "not discriminat[ing] Internet traffic" on the given bases is clear enough. The NN movement and its legislative sponsors now seem to be talking the right language. We seem to have been quite successful. We still have to watch to see what language comes out as the Steven Bill progresses. I still haven't seen the actual amendment that was presented during the markup for the Stevens Bill. Seth Seth Johnson wrote:
The proposal is designed to straighten out the current misguided discourse on NN, which actually would end up ending NN either way -- the "pro-NN" legislative proposals would essentially say similar applications need to be treated the same, thereby authorizing the breaking of the separation of layers.
Our point is, as I think you see, that the merits of the Internet's design are for application flexibility as provided by the nature if the transport, and this design needs to be recognized in policy that intends to enforce neutrality, because that design will be lost as a result of the current discussion.
Many observe that present practices already block or disfavor certain applications. We want those practices to be the substance of the discussion, and the discussion should be on the right basis. The proposal is designed to accomplish that (and we believe we have already had that effect -- Snowe and Dorgan may have modified their amendment to the Stevens Bill, withdrawing their original proposal and introducing a simple additional principle to the FCC's list, in response to the concerns we expressed that they would unintentionally actually end up ending NN. And, while common carrier is not necessarily the only solution, we think that the consumer groups pursuing NN settled on a position of going back to common carrier a la Internet II as a result of the concerns we raised).
A lot of times, we've found many people looking at NN in more deterministic or behavioral terms, as in rules about practices that network providers must obey. The thing to "get" about this proposal is that if it passed, the result is really to preserve and separate the standards. If everybody proceeded to offer the same services, with little tiny asterisked notices in their advertising that "this is not Internet per US Code XXX" we'd still achieve the critical outcome.
We think it's the right position to present, and it's critical that it be presented now. Of course, we can't exactly fault people who are engaged in the discussion at the level of what existing practices are.
NANOG folks would either sign out of simple dedication end-to-end purity, or knowing that starting from this place, other issues will be addressed appropriately. And note, it is designed not to legislate engineering -- only to say that what may be called Internet needs to actually follow the standard, described here in abstract terms in terms of the router behavior. This preserves the standards against their being trumped by incumbents who are asserting they can go ahead and offer priced, tiered services, and against letting local peering policies of certain incumbents (or port blocking practices of "consumer internet," etc.) from gaining priority due to their position in the market.
Seth
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:25:55 EDT, Seth Johnson said:
(2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers.
So how does all this mumbo-jumbo square up with the common practices of blocking SMTP and the 135-139/445 ports to protect your own infrastructure from the mass of malware that results if you don't block it? And does this mean that my Verizon DSL isn't 'The Internet' because the customer side of the modem hands me a DHCP address in RFC1918 space? For bonus points - is the DSL *still* "not the Internet" if I bring my own DSL modem or hand-configure the DSL one to mitigate the effects of NAT brain damage?
What percentage of cable and DSL access is an "unfair or deceptive act" per the definition of this?
----------------------------------------------------------------- Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
--
RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
-- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights.
* Seth Johnson:
(A) Internet.— The term “Internet” means the worldwide, publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), some characteristics of which include:
So I put all my customers behind a NAT device (or just a stateful packet filter). They are no longer publicly accessible, and hence not subject to the provisions of this section. Fixing that would probably require companies to open up their corporate networks, which is a non-starter. (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.)
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.)
eBay and Google aren't selling transit. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
* Mark Newton:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.)
eBay and Google aren't selling transit.
Neither is your local cable company. 8-)
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mark Newton:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.) eBay and Google aren't selling transit.
Neither is your local cable company. 8-)
Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their cable modem customers, surely? - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
* Mark Newton:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mark Newton:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.) eBay and Google aren't selling transit.
Neither is your local cable company. 8-)
Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their cable modem customers, surely?
Quote from a typical terms of service agreement: | (b) Subscriber will not resell the Service, or any portion thereof, or | otherwise charge others to use the Service, or any portion | thereof. The Service is for personal use only, and Subscriber agrees | not to use the Service for operation as an Internet Service Provider, | to host web sites for other parties or for any other business | enterprise or to connect the Cable modem to any server or to any | computer outside of the Subscriber's premises. | | (c) Without Time Warner Cable 's prior written approval, Subscriber | shall not post or transmit through the Service any material that | constitutes or contains advertising or any solicitation with respect | to products or services, nor shall Subscriber transmit bulk e-mail | without prior written permission from Time Warner Cable. IP transit has no such restrictions.
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 03:58:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their cable modem customers, surely?
Quote from a typical terms of service agreement:
I think you're missing the point, Florian. Regardless of any retail restrictions, the fact still remains that your local Cable company is selling connectivity to other peoples' autonomous systems. That's transit. And that's what eBay and Google don't sell. - mark -- Mark Newton Email: newton@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: newton@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
* Mark Newton:
I think you're missing the point, Florian. Regardless of any retail restrictions, the fact still remains that your local Cable company is selling connectivity to other peoples' autonomous systems.
Then why do the ads promote their new chat service, instead the ever-growing number of ASNs on the Internet? 8-) I don't think the majority of consumers cares about this IP transit things as long as their usual applications keep working. Anyway, I suppose I can tell apart all these different types of Internet access quite easily, but I can't come up with a generally applicable set of criteria to categorize them properly.
* Seth Johnson:
(A) Internet.â The term âInternetâ means the worldwide, publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), some characteristics of which include:
So I put all my customers behind a NAT device (or just a stateful packet filter). They are no longer publicly accessible, and hence not subject to the provisions of this section.
That could be trivially addressed through a Truth in Advertising provision. Something I've been advocating for years. Don't call it Internet access if it isn't. This has bothered me for years at hotels where I end up using GPRS because their stupid "Internet access" system is some sort of web proxy that resets any connection over two minutes; I need to have SSH! And often you can't even log in with a UNIX laptop because they require a web browser with flash and javascript and all sorts of other garbage... I realize that there are some practical realities to operating large scale customer ISP's. I know a number that use (or have used) NAT, or limit port 25, or have a per-month maximum number of gigs per connection. These limitations are rarely disclosed to customers up front, and I believe that to be something that ought to be corrected. So that's already addressed by the dpsproject folks in Sec. 3(3). Which makes me reasonably happy. But there's a flip side to that problem. Restricting companies from calling it "Internet access" may not have the desired effect. And this is where network neutrality definitions also become a problem. Let's say I'm Joe's Telephone & Telegraph - JT&T. I'm a big telco and I want to offer my hundred million subscribers a DSL solution that will allow me to offer IPTV and other nifty stuff, but I definitely want to be able to treat my customers as a somewhat captive audience. I'm not really convinced that Sec. 3 is sufficiently strong enough that I might not be able to get away with deploying "JT&T Planetconnect", my own IPTV/VoIP/content portal service that also includes Internet access. My quick read of Sec. 3 makes me wonder if there isn't a loophole if I simply don't *say* that it includes access to the Internet, don't *charge* for access to the Internet, etc. A question for the lawyers to puzzle out, to be sure. Further, I wonder if the wide brush strokes in Sec. 3 (1)(B) might actually prohibit things like BCP38.
Fixing that would probably require companies to open up their corporate networks, which is a non-starter.
I don't see why. Unless they're in the business of hauling Internet traffic, a company's connection to the Internet is at the edge of their network. If they want to install a content control device, bandwidth limiter, unplug the Ethernet, whatever, beyond their Internet demarc, that is a choice they've made and it is an internal networking choice. It may affect the quality of their Internet experience, but it is not being imposed by a third party, which is what net neutrality is largely about.
(I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.)
No, why would it? (note that I may be missing something; I'm not aware of eBay or Google selling transit or transport, and if they are, that changes my reply.) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Joe Greco wrote:
Don't call it Internet access if it isn't. This has bothered me for years at hotels where I end up using GPRS because their stupid "Internet access" system is some sort of web proxy that resets any connection over two minutes;
ISTM that GPRS operators are the first and worst offenders when it comes to violating the principle of net neutrality. Almost always NATed, usually they present the end-user with a bewildering array of "access point" service options with different tariffs and filters depending upon whether you want WAP, MMS, real IP etc etc. Eventually if you dig deep enough past the single-OS-centric marketing fluff on their website to get the right fiddly settings you need for raw, clear, maybe even native IP access, it generally takes at least one further negotiation with a call center to then get this "non-standard" option enabled :-( The worrying aspect is the GSM/GPRS operators seem to be rather more effective at making money from this model than traditional ISPs from a neutral one, and I am sure this is not lost on the carrier side of the NN debate... Keith http://www.keithmitchell.co.uk
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Keith Mitchell wrote:
to violating the principle of net neutrality. Almost always NATed,
I've been told that quite a lot of the GPRS equipment can't handle being put on the "internet" without a FW or NAT box in front of it. The background noise from scans etc takes quite a big toll on the gateways. This is of course due to manufacturers of said equipment still is ruled by people that do not understand what the internet really is. Also, if you're a customer to these services and pay per usage, you probably do not want to pay for background noise reaching your terminal, and since it's low bw (12kilobit/s or so for GSM) you don't want it from a performance point of view either. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 03:25:55PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: Hi,
So far, much of the argument over "net neutrality" has been over whether service providers should be allowed to favor one application, destination or Internet service over another. This is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits from every type of application.
So, what happened to "my network, my rules"? Perhaps I'm not seeing the point here, but what on earth does a government has to do with the question wether or not a service provider implements QoS on his network? Thanks, -- Sabri ENOSUNSHINE when $SHE == gone
So, what happened to "my network, my rules"?
Perhaps I'm not seeing the point here, but what on earth does a government has to do with the question wether or not a service provider implements QoS on his network?
The government supplies them with laws virtually making them a monopoly in Internet transit to consumer users. It they get a protected status in the marketplace, the consumers deserve protection from them (the telcos). -joe ------------------------------------------------ Joseph A. Johnson, MCSE, MVP, A+ Chief Technology Officer Riverside Consulting Group, Ltd. joe@riversidecg.com 312-231-8315 www.riversidecg.com
participants (9)
-
Florian Weimer -
Joe Greco -
Joe Johnson -
Keith Mitchell -
Mark Newton -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Sabri Berisha -
Seth Johnson -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu