[discuss] [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet

Wed Mar 11 19:08:53 UTC 2015

That's all true but the key distinction is how you would request
specific content in each system.

In the current system we are location-oriented first and then specify
content as a further detail. Or not. We might just request a location
such as www.cnn.com and hope that implies news headlines without ever
indicating that's what we actually wanted.

So if we want a movie from netflix we start by saying something like
"ask netflix.com for this movie".

In the proposed system we only ask for the movie and somehow the
internal workings of the system figure out how to deliver it.

It's somewhat analogous to the change from the -- now unfortunately
named but it was the 1960s -- network database schemes where one
identifies data by its path in the data store such as
books.author.dickens (similar to most modern file systems) and can't
discover all works by dickens without some sort of exhaustive or at
least repetitive search (ok then let's try essays.author.dickens)
versus relational databases where a schema might allow one to just
request anything with AUTHOR=DICKENS whether it's a book or essay or
recipe.

Again, think of the analogy to a file system where if you put
something in a file you need the specific path to that file, its
location, or you have to do some sort of exhaustive search. The
current DNS/URI scheme is like that.

We do something like this now with search engines stating what we want
and hoping it returns useful locations and then chase down those
locations. So the location-dependence is still transparent in the
current search-engine scheme.

The proposed scheme says to just store and query everything by content
description and let location only be part of the opaque mechanics.

As the wikipedia page notes some of this idea goes back to ideas of
Ted Nelson in the 1970s to store and retrieve data by content rather
than location.

Nelson went a little further and anticipated identifying content by
its reference by other content (e.g., via bibliograpy) basically
anticipating google's page ranking algorithms, a way to score the best
fit to a query. So beyond just asking for the movie "The Maltese
Falcon" this scheme might indicate that the Humphrey Bogart version is
likely a better fit than the earlier (1931) Ricardo Cortez version of
the same name. Or not.

From: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
>
>Thanks Barry, informative.
>
>Though the addressing scheme is different and optimised for particular =
>uses, in practical implementation it sounds a lot like you=92d be =
>effectively making ISPs and/or IXPs provide functions similar to a CDN =
>node. I=92m not even sure the separate naming scheme is necessary, the =
>difference seems to be distinguishing between relatively static content =
>and communication end points, which doesn=92t need an entirely separate =
>naming scheme. I=92m not sure that we need a totally separate naming =
>scheme to achieve this. The end result would, architecturally, seem to =
>be not vastly different from an internet in which everything was going =
>through a smart, interconnected, system of caching proxies (e.g. squid).
>
>David
>
>On 10 Mar 2015, at 7:16 am, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>
>>=20
>> First, the name is not "Van Johansen", it is "Van Jacobson", I know
>> Van, he is very smart and has made great contributions to the
>> development of networking technology. He deserves to have his name
>> right!
>>=20
>> The architecture being discussed is described here:
>>=20
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking
>>=20
>> where they call it "Named Data Networking".
>>=20
>> The basic idea is straightforward enough:
>>=20
>> Currently you access information on the internet by identifying its
>> location, usually indirectly.
>>=20
>> Ultimately that location is identifed by an IP address such as
>> 192.74.137.5.
>>=20
>> *** IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOW SKIP FROM HERE ****
>>=20
>> We usually don't use those directly so instead we might start with a
>> domain name such as www.TheWorld.com which DNS translates to that IP
>> address. Or a URI such as http://www.TheWorld.com (possibly with
>> further qualification.)
>>=20
>> As a further indirection we might discover that is what we want via a
>> search engine or link in another document but nonetheless the goal is
>> that IP address no matter how many levels of indirection it takes to
>> arrive there.
>>=20
>> At a lower level, once identified (located), our packets are routed to
>> that IP address probably passing through one or more routers.
>>=20
>> That is how the internet works currently, in brief other than how
>> routing itself works.
>>=20
>> *** TO HERE ****
>>=20
>> IN THE PROPOSED scheme, Named Data Networking:
>>=20
>> A unit of information, say an online book or movie, is identified not
>> by its location but by its content in some way.
>>=20
>> *** YOU MIGHT BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL ***
>>=20
>> *** OR YOU CAN SKIP TO HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN ***
>>=20
>> So, for example, if I wanted to watch "Gone With The Wind" rather than
>> somehow (which is key!) discovering that I can watch it via the
>> Netflix service and locating netflix.com, etc I would simply say
>> something like "movie:gone with the wind" because that would be how it
>> is stored.
>>=20
>> At some low level its location still has to be identified but I think
>> the key concept is that I, as the consumer, have not identified that
>> location (e.g., netflix.com). I only identified what it is I want,
>> that movie (or book, etc.)
>>=20
>> So in the proposed scheme you remove (or supplement) the interface
>> everyone currently uses -- namely chasing down and identifying the
>> location of data -- which is done, ultimately, via IP address (and
>> routing to/from that address) and identify what you want only by its
>> content.
>>=20
>> That is, again, rather than netflix.com and so forth you would only
>> say something like "move:gone with the wind" and let the mechanics of
>> the system get that for you.
>>=20
>> You can read the wikipedia page for more detail. The devil is
>> certainly in the details of how this might be implemented and used.
>>=20
>> *** AS PROMISED: HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN ***
>>=20
>> It's not really like a CDN because CDNs are still answering requests
>> for data identified by location, they just are serving as a
>> short-circuit.
>>=20
>> ** YOU MIGHT REALLY BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL ***
>>=20
>> That is, rather than proceeding to that location the CDN's nodes
>> intervene and respond with the location's content.
>>=20
>> So if I want CNN's front page I say http://www.cnn.com and the CDN
>> intercepts that and says "here it is!" without my request having to
>> actually travel all the way to wherever CNN's servers lie.
>>=20
>> But in a CDN you're still identifying content in terms of its
>> location.
>>=20
>> As an extreme example if for some reason (e.g., hijacking!) CNN's
>> front page had only a copy of Gone With The Wind that's what the CDN
>> would hand you.
>>=20
>> The CDN has no inherent understanding that you requested that location
>> because you wanted to see news headlines, you never said that, it was
>> only implied because you happen to know www.cnn.com should contain
>> news headlines.
>>=20
>> The CDN only knows you requested whatever is at www.cnn.com, a
>> location, and handed you its contents presumably from a closer
>> (network-wise) location in the hope that is faster and reduces traffic
>> across the internet's backbone and the remote CNN servers.
>>=20
>> But you will get whatever is at that location you named, you don't
>> indicate what you want.
>>=20
>> *** EVERYTHING BELOW IS JUST QUOTED TEXT FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGES ***
>> *** AN ANNOYING CUSTOM ON THESE LISTS BECAUSE IT'S DIFFICULT TO ***
>> *** INCORPORATE PREVIOUS MESSAGE TEXT ONLY BY REFERENCE! ***
>>=20
>> From: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> >Is it just me, or does this
>> just sound like a very mild generalisation of t=3D >he idea of CDNs =
>like
>> Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)=3D >? A concept
>> already in use by most large internet media providers?
>>>=20
>>> It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of =
>the netw=3D
>>> ork neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is =
>approp=3D
>>> riate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth =
>providers a=3D
>>> re heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in =
>situations wh=3D
>>> ere some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive =
>to prov=3D
>>> ide).
>>>=20
>>> Cheers
>>>=20
>>> David
>>>=20
>>> On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet =
><nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com> wrot=3D
>>> e:
>>>=20
>>>> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet =
>should cha=3D
>>> nge from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between =
>two node=3D
>>> s at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the =
>memory stor=3D
>>> ed in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering =
>occurrin=3D
>>> g at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of =
>addresses=3D
>>> at the same time.
>>>> Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of =
>househ=3D
>>> olds not from a single address point, but from everywhere to =
>everywhere.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is =
>refe=3D
>>> rring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality?
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Nathalie
>>>> =3D20
>>>> From: Gary Kenward <garykenward at ieee.org>
>>>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro>
>>>> Cc: internetpolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 10:19 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be defined =
>neutrally
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can =
>assure y=3D
>>> ou that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And =
>their pri=3D
>>> mary objective is to move up the food chain and become application =
>service =3D
>>> and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv).
>>>> =3D20
>>>> To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a =
>generally=3D
>>> satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can =
>delive=3D
>>> r Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention =
>pictu=3D
>>> res of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ =
>year =3D
>>> old communications technology.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> =3D20
>>>> Plus =3DE7a change, plus c'est la m=3DEAme chose.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> The information contained in this document is private and =
>confidential. T=3D
>>> his document is not to
>>>> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission =
>of t=3D
>>> he author.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> =
>wrote:
>>>> =3D20
>>>>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread =
>about=3D
>>> business models is this:
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN =
>decisi=3D
>>> on change their view if they weren't for-profit companies?
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong =
>oppositi=3D
>>> on from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise =
>return, an=3D
>>> d charging services for priority is another way to maximise return.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman =
><mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wr=3D
>>> ote:
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well =
>run mun=3D
>>> icipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and =
>that's w=3D
>>> ho's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and =
>meterin=3D
>>> g and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run =
>wires.... Abo=3D
>>> ut the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a =
>small nu=3D
>>> mber of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a =
>nation=3D
>>> al government.
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to =
>right-o=3D
>>> f-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole =
>space=3D
>>> and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in.
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> Gary W Kenward wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone =
>services wer=3D
>>> e in Canada and Europe, and I haven=3D92t seen anything that would =
>suggest to=3D
>>> day=3D92s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier =
>service=3D
>>> s, particularly at the municipal level.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair =
>competiti=3D
>>> on laws.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>> /*
>>>>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND =
>CONFIDENTIAL.
>>>>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED =
>WITHOUT PE=3D
>>> RMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman =
><mfidelman at meetinghouse.net<m=3D
>>> ailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> It's called municipal broadband.
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a =
>bad mo=3D
>>> del.
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and =
>not-for-p=3D
>>> rofit models for ISPs.
>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com =
><mailto:veni=3D
>>> @veni.com> <mailto:veni at veni.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and =
>build=3D
>>> ing our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables =
>was ve=3D
>>> ry high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But =
>we di=3D
>>> dn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase =
>profits...
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . =
><ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com<mai=3D
>>> lto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> <mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of
>>>>>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> The conflict was that people who received telephone calls on
>>>>>>>>>> their mobile devices would get billed and charged for minutes =
>and
>>>>>>>>>> for money when they received calls that they were unable to =
>give
>>>>>>>>>> informed consent to in advance.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow
>>>>>>>>>> these lines.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> I am sure that the taxpayers are funding for some basic
>>>>>>>>>> telecommunications services to include Internet and that the
>>>>>>>>>> funding goes directly to telecommunications providers to =
>maintain
>>>>>>>>>> a common system.  At a minimum, all American taxpayers already
>>>>>>>>>> funding for the federal users of the Internet.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> I do not see having users on the Internet as a problem, =
>because
>>>>>>>>>> the Internet serves them.  I do have a problem with
>>>>>>>>>> double-dipping, where the man in the middle (providing the
>>>>>>>>>> communications) chooses to charge both entities higher and =
>higher
>>>>>>>>>> rates while selling access to a common system of =
>communication.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> I am concerned that at some point, the costs of provisioning =
>and
>>>>>>>>>> building the system are amortized away and the resulting high
>>>>>>>>>> charges would just line the pockets of investors, service
>>>>>>>>>> providers, and speculators without going to improve the
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure for everyone, to include new users coming =
>online.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of
>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately
>>>>>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> If the infrastructure is indeed improved upon, meaning more
>>>>>>>>>> bandwidth comes available and more users can access it, then =
>the
>>>>>>>>>> service providers will continue to receive some taxpayer =
>funding
>>>>>>>>>> and even a larger customer base for newly established private
>>>>>>>>>> accounts on the improved infrastructure.  This might even be
>>>>>>>>>> considered a win-win opportunity for all to benefit.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW <http://www.qsl.net/ac5jw/>
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles
>>>>>>>>>> Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net =
><mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse=3D
>>> .net>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>     Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new
>>>>>>>>>>     competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their =
>own
>>>>>>>>>>     content services.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>     Miles Fidelman
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>     Richard Hill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in =
>the
>>>>>>>>>>         US because of the lack of competition in that country.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Richard
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         *From:*InternetPolicy
>>>>>>>>>>         [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On
>>>>>>>>>>         Behalf Of *Veni Markovski
>>>>>>>>>>         *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41
>>>>>>>>>>         *To:* Patrik F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m
>>>>>>>>>>         *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org =
><mailto:internetpolicy=3D
>>> @elists.isoc.org>
>>>>>>>>>>         *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't =
>be
>>>>>>>>>>         defined neutrally
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         +1, as an ISP, we always wanted to build and offer =
>more
>>>>>>>>>>         bandwidth - not last reason was because our =
>competitors
>>>>>>>>>>         were doing the same. In the USA there's practically no
>>>>>>>>>>         real competition - you choose between the cable =
>company
>>>>>>>>>>         (formerly tv), and the phone company (usually one). =
>When
>>>>>>>>>>         I moved there, I wanted to continue with my business, =
>but
>>>>>>>>>>         turned out regulations are made in such a way that =
>they
>>>>>>>>>>         don't allow competition. As a matter of fact, this =
>past
>>>>>>>>>>         week I saw a message that the government would allow =
>the
>>>>>>>>>>         creation of municipal networks, and the telcos protest =
>as
>>>>>>>>>>         this will be unfair competition...
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik F=3DE4ltstr=3DF6m=
>
>>>>>>>>>>         <paf at frobbit.se =
><mailto:paf at frobbit.se><mailto:paf at frobbit=3D
>>> .se>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>>>>>>>>>         <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com><javascript:;>> =
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>> Is this really what happens? Is the ball solely in the
>>>>>>>>>>         ISP court? I'd
>>>>>>>>>>> tend to think the responsibility is shared these days.
>>>>>>>>>>         The explosion of
>>>>>>>>>>> video services has shown an incredible growth in
>>>>>>>>>>         traffic which, if I was
>>>>>>>>>>> an ISP, I'd find very difficult to follow.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Why? A user can not use more than what the ISP connect
>>>>>>>>>>         them with. If you get 1Mbps from your ISP you can not =
>use
>>>>>>>>>>         more than 1Mbps, right?
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>> Look at Netflix for example -
>>>>>>>>>>> accounting for 35% of all US Internet traffic during
>>>>>>>>>>         peak periods?
>>>>>>>>>>> =
>http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-over=3D
>>> all-us-internet-traffic/
>>>>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic?
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Sure, for an ISP an IP packet is an IP packet. =
>Customers
>>>>>>>>>>         want to use more of them so the ISP can sell more of =
>them.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Once again, the issue you point at is that users get
>>>>>>>>>>         100Mbps (for example) and earlier used 1Mbps but now =
>uses
>>>>>>>>>>         10Mbps. This implies the traffic in the network have
>>>>>>>>>>         increased with a multiplier of 10 but the ISP do not =
>get
>>>>>>>>>>         more money. Simply because what the user uses is
>>>>>>>>>>         unexpected but still "within" the product that the ISP
>>>>>>>>>>         actually have sold.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong =
>thing.
>>>>>>>>>>         I am just explaining what I see the issue is.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         If an ISP has sold "up to 100Mbps" and users earlier =
>did
>>>>>>>>>>         use 1Mbps, but now 10Mbps, why would the ISP get money
>>>>>>>>>>         from Netflix because the 9Mbps unexpected traffic is =
>to
>>>>>>>>>>         Netflix? Netflix already pays for the 9Mbps to their =
>data
>>>>>>>>>>         centers.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>            Patrik
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>>>>         Veni
>>>>>>>>>> http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>
>>>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         ***
>>>>>>>>>>         The opinions expressed above
>>>>>>>>>>         are those of the author, not of
>>>>>>>>>>         any organizations, associated
>>>>>>>>>>         with or related to him in
>>>>>>>>>>         any given way.
>>>>>>>>>>         ***
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         =3D3D=3D3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling =
>mistakes are
>>>>>>>>>>         caused by the touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the
>>>>>>>>>>         reason for using short words and phrases.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>         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.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>     --
>>>>>>>>>>     In theory, there is no difference between theory and =
>practice.
>>>>>>>>>>     In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>     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.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Veni
>>>>>>>>>> http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>
>>>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above
>>>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of
>>>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated
>>>>>>>>>> with or related to him in
>>>>>>>>>> any given way.
>>>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D3D=3D3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are =
>caused by t=3D
>>> he touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short =
>words and =3D
>>> phrases.
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>>>>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>> =3D20
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> =3D20
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>> =3D20
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>=20