[129749] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Sep 17 17:49:17 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C93CDB1.5070807@brightok.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:43:56 -0700
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for =
neutrality.
>>=20
>> Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of =
terms and conditions, not identical service or traffic levels.
>>=20
>=20
> Charging content providers for higher class service is perfectly =
neutral by your definition. So long as you offered the same class of =
service to all content providers who wished to pay.
>=20
Charging them for higher class service on the circuits which connect =
directly to them is neutral.
Charging them to effect the profile of the circuits directly connected =
to your other customers is non-neutral.
>> Neutrality is about letting the customer decide which content they =
want, not the ISP and expecting the ISP to be a fair broker
>> in connecting customers to content.
>=20
> Offering better options to content providers would be perfectly =
acceptable here, as well, so long as you offer it to all.
>=20
Again, nobody is opposing offering better connectivity to content =
providers. What they are opposing is selling
content providers the right to screw your customers that choose to use =
said content providers competitors.
>> The former is adding capacity to meet demand. The latter is not =
effectively adding bandwidth, it is reducing bandwidth for one to
>> reward the other.
>>=20
>=20
> Which is fine, so long as you offer that class of service to all.
>=20
You can't offer that class of service to all, and, even if you do, no, =
it's no neutral when you do it that way.
>> The way this would work in the real world (and what people are =
objecting to) is that the ISP would transition from
>>=20
>> 1) 90mb public with no prioritization
>>=20
>> to
>>=20
>> 2) 90mb public with N mb prioritized via destination where N is the =
number of mbps that the destination
>> wanted to pay for.
>>=20
>=20
> Except my fictional account follows real world saturation experience =
historically. What you are giving is considered ideal compared to =
breaking the 90mb up to allow separate throughput for the service, which =
I guarantee a provider would do for enough money; given restriction of =
total available bandwidth.
>=20
Total available bandwidth isn't what AT&T is pushing the FCC to allow =
them to carve up this way.
AT&T is pushing for the right to sell (or select) content providers =
prioritized bandwidth closer to
the consumer tail-circuit.
>> More importantly, it's not the 90mb public circuits where this is the =
real concern. The real concern is
>> on the shared customer infrastructure side closer to the end-user =
where it's, say, 45mbps to the
>> DSLAM going form 45mbps public to 45mbps public with 20mbps =
prioritized for content-provider-A
>> while users trying to use content-provider-B get a degraded =
experience compared to A if their
>> neighbors are using A. (Hence my belief that this is already a =
Sherman Anti-Trust issue).
>=20
> I think that only qualifies if content-provider-B doesn't care to pay =
for such a service, but it is available to them.
>=20
What if the service simply isn't available to content-provider-B because =
content-provider-A is
a relater party to said ISP or said ISP simply chooses not to offer it =
on a neutral basis?
(Which is exactly what AT&T has stated they want to do.)
>> Neutrality means everyone faces the same odds and the same terms and =
conditions.
>> It means that amongst the other customers sharing the same ISP =
infrastructure we are
>> all treated fairly and consistently.
>=20
> All customers can access the premium and non-premium content the same. =
ISP based licensing by content providers seems like a bigger scam.
>=20
I'm not sure what you mean by "ISP based licensing by content =
providers".
>> Apparently not an ISP that I would subscribe to.
>=20
> Nope. You'd probably stick with a saturated bandwidth ISP and gripe =
about net-neutrality because your service is slightly more piss poor =
than your neighbors when your neighbor happens to go to a premium site =
and you don't. I'll stick with not having saturation on shared links.
>=20
Actually, no. I've got good unsaturated service from both of the ISPs =
providing
circuits into my house and from the upstreams that I use their circuits =
to reach
for my real routing.
(I'm unusual... I use Comcast and DSL to provide layer 2 transport to =
colo
facilities where I have routers. I then use the routers in the colo =
facilties to
advertise my addresses into BGP and trade my real packets. As far as
Comcast and my DSL provider are concerned, I'm just running a whole
lot of protocol 43 traffic to a very small set of destinations.)
I use the two providers in question because they are, generally, neutral
in their approach and do not play funky QoS games with my traffic.
Owen
