Fwd: [Arch-econ] Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is being quoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill
thank you Vint. folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago. Please note also Vint's remark:
If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.
I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear. ============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic & Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml ============================================================= Begin forwarded message:
From: "Vint Cerf" <vint@google.com> Date: November 11, 2005 10:10:40 AM EST To: "'economics of ip networks'" Subject: Re:Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill Reply-To: economics of ip networks
Gordon,
today, you are typically charged based on the maximum capacity of the access circuit you "purchase" - that's flat rate. At the time (8 years ago) people wanted to have the burst rate but didn't want to pay for the unused capacity so we instituted a tiered pricing system that allowed them, e.g., to burst at 45 Mb/s but only pay for the effectively used capacity. As I recall, we used something like the 95th percentile as a measurement of capacity used - in other words, you paid for that capacity below which 95% of all sampled rates fell. I don't recall all the details but there may have been a fixed/variable structure. A fixed amount for having access to burst capacity of a certain size and a variable amount depending on average rate. the implication is that if you purchased a burst T1 and used half on the average you might pay less than if you purchased burst T3 and used only a half T1's worth. The somewhat higher charge would be a consequence of having access to a higher absolute rate/capacity. This idea may still have legs today although as speeds increase, and prices fall, it may not be nearly the same issue as it was eight years ago. You might ask MCI and other ISPs what their pricing structures are today for some perspective.
I do not see that tiered pricing is a neutrality threat. Neutrality has to do with differentiation with regard to the actual content carried (or service provided). If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality. One might think of the notion of neutrality as the 21st C version of common carriage although I hesitate to draw the comparison if only because of the complex way in which "common carriage" concept and rules have evolved.
vint
Vinton G Cerf Chief Internet Evangelist Google/Regus Herndon, VA 20171
vint@google.com www.google.com
From: On Behalf Of Gordon Cook Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:40 AM To: economics of ip networks Subject: Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill
Any comments?
Any comments from anyone?
From: sean@donelan.com Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill] Date: November 11, 2005 12:58:40 AM EST To: christopher.morrow@mci.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
oops ;) my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X speed, it was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long bandwidth but price alone.
In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI.
http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml Although MCI has not yet made a formal announcement via a press release, Cerf explained that "we are plainly discussing this with you, Gordon, and your readers." The MCI move is the outcome of what Cerf describes as a crunch between the Internet's flat rate pricing model and usage patterns where both the amount of use and disparity between use by applications has increased dramatically.
Will consumers prefer to pay higher flat rate charges for everything, or prefer different pricing models when they access applications which require dramatically different service levels to include the cost as part of an application specific fee?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gordon Cook <cook@cookreport.com> Date: November 11, 2005 9:11:17 AM EST To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap - worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in past.
Think about what you are saying: " Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is actually
in many ways proposed "deregulation"
Yes it is indeed. It frees the duopoly to do whatever it wants. And Whittacre has said what he wants and what he will do quite plainly -- has he not? He will charge google and yahoo and skype for using his networks.
Here is how this legislation is being read in London at a public telco blog recently launched by DRKW the large investment bank: http://telcotech.drkw.com/blog/archives/2005/11/will_evil_preva.html
"For all of our sakes lets hope that the telcos are not successful in their lobbying effort in the US. If they are successful, you can bet that your investment in the fixed telecoms utilities is safer but innovation on the internet is in jeopardy - which do you think creates more incremental future value in the world ultimately?"
Vint Cerf is on my economics of IP networks private mail list. The DRKW blog post partially cited above came in part from a public item comment of Vint's that i posted day before yesterday to my private list. It is fascinating that Sean Donelan whom I have known and respected since 1991 dug that 1997 item quote from Vint from my archives. Donelan: "In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI.
http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml
COOK Report: Recall the date. This is PRE stupid network and again VINT is taking the pre-internet pre stupid network telco point of view. I'll post this to my list and see if Vint has anything that he wants to say about this 8 year old opinion.
Owen, do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check is IMHO much worse. But don't take my word for it - check out DRKW's analyst's opinion. Fred Goldstein also has a pretty good analysis. I probably will not further respond to this thread discussion. Please forgive me but I am swamped with many things that demand attention.
============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic & Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml =============================================================
On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is actually in many ways proposed "deregulation". This bill removes more authority from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It provides a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and a couple of other minor consumer protections, says "The government shall butt the hell out."
That's why I like it.
But Owen - what if getting evil gov't out gives Whittacre a blank check?
Owen
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gordon Cook wrote:
thank you Vint.
folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago.
Please note also Vint's remark:
If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.
I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear.
Gordon, from what I read the "interfere" part was specifically called out in the Bill... I have probably missed some of the "gotcha's". Do you have the sections where BITS providers will be allowed to interfere/inspect? The inspect part does not appear to be referenced. Here is the section I am talking about... ---snip----- SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS. (a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.—Subject to subsection2 (b), each BITS provider has the duty—3 (1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4 offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5 tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6 net;7 --end snip----
Blaine: This is about all I can offer under the circumstances. It is from page 45 of my nov-dec issue published about sept 30. you do ask a Reasonable question. ======= From Brett Glass on September 17 via Dave Farber’s IP List - Here it comes: Regulation of the Internet and ISPs Here’s some information on the broadband bill that’s about to pass out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A bag of goodies for the reconsolidating Baby Bells, it has lots of implications for independent ISPs and WISPs -- not all of them good. For example, it requires all broadband ISPs to register with the FCC and allows the FCC to deny the application and prohibit it from offering service. Yes, that’s right, folks; if this bill goes through, you must say, “Mother, May I?” to be an ISP. It also requires all VoIP providers to ask government permission to offer VoIP. It also mandates E-911 services for VoIP, thus disadvantaging independent VoIP providers. And it requires that VoIP providers be able to provide geographic information about callers (which implies, in turn, the ability to determine the physical location of any Internet user). So much for privacy or anonymity on the Internet! Other provisions (it’s a long, meaty bill) would likely give the cable/ILEC duopoly major advantages over independent ISPs and WISPs. Below is a Washington Post article on the bill, followed by a press release from the Committee, followed by links to a brief analysis and the text of the bill itself. Draft Legislation Aims To Aid Competition In Broadband Services By Arshad Mohammed Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 16, 2005; D02 A key House committee released draft legislation yesterday requiring broadband providers to allow their subscribers to view any legal online content, a policy aimed at keeping big Internet companies from restricting access to competitors’ Web offerings. The House Energy and Commerce Committee draft is a victory for advocates of “net neutrality” -- the idea that Internet providers have to stand aside and allow customers to access any Web pages as long as the content is legal. The principle is considered crucial to preserving the open nature of the Internet and preventing big broadband providers from squeezing out smaller competitors that offer voice, video or other services. Another provision in the proposed law also makes it easier for telephone companies to offer television over high-speed lines. It seeks to free cable and telephone companies from having to negotiate video franchises with numerous local authorities around the country, instead giving the Federal Communications Commission more authority over the process. That would largely benefit the major telephone companies like Verizon Communications Inc., SBC Communications Corp. and BellSouth Corp., which hope to offer television over fiber-optic lines. Yesterday, officials at those companies reacted favorably to the legislation. Other aspects of the draft legislation are aimed at making sure cable and telephone companies get equivalent regulatory treatment as they offer broadband Internet access. The draft is a first salvo from the committee, which is led by Texas Republican Joe Barton, in what is likely to be a lengthy battle in Congress over any rewrite of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2005/09/15/AR2005091502257.html Cook on November 11 There is more but I REALLY need to bow out now that Vin't has given a current point of view. I would certainly trust Brett Glass on this as well as David Isenberg and Fred Goldstein to name a few ============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook@cookreport.com Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic & Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml ============================================================= On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:52 AM, Blaine Christian wrote:
On Nov 11, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gordon Cook wrote:
thank you Vint.
folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago.
Please note also Vint's remark:
If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.
I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear.
Gordon, from what I read the "interfere" part was specifically called out in the Bill...
I have probably missed some of the "gotcha's". Do you have the sections where BITS providers will be allowed to interfere/ inspect? The inspect part does not appear to be referenced.
Here is the section I am talking about...
---snip-----
SEC. 104. ACCESS TO BITS. (a) DUTIES OFPROVIDERS.—Subject to subsection2 (b), each BITS provider has the duty—3 (1) not to block, impair, or interfere with the4 offering of, access to, or the use of any lawful con-5 tent, application, or service provided over the Inter-6 net;7
--end snip----
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Gordon Cook wrote:
Please note also Vint's remark:
If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.
Would packet classification and per-hop queuing of different DSCP classes be considered "interference" in this world? What if a VOIP provider didn't want to pay for its packets to go in an EF queue, so the network processed the packets in the normal queue, is that a violation of your principles?
participants (3)
-
Blaine Christian -
Gordon Cook -
Sean Donelan