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

Mon Mar 2 16:02:31 UTC 2015

According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should change from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two nodes at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stored in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurring at each hop, in order to send content to a very great number of addresses at the same time. Thus, Netflix would be able to send its content to great number of households not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere. 
Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is referring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality? 
Thanks,  Nathalie
      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

Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure you that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their primary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv).
To be clear, for me working with the telecom industry was not a generally satisfying experience. I still cannot get over the fact that we can deliver Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictures of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year old communications technology.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
The information contained in this document is private and confidential. This document is not tobe copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of the author.
On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:

The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about business models is this:

To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decision change their view if they weren't for-profit companies?

You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong opposition from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, and charging services for priority is another way to maximise return. 

On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:

At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run municipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's who's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and metering and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... About the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small number of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a national government.

The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-of-ways -- there's a real first-mover advantage, after you've got pole space and buildout, it's very hard for competition to move in.

Gary W Kenward wrote:

I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors.

However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services were in Canada and Europe, and I haven’t seen anything that would suggest today’s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier services, particularly at the municipal level.

The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competition laws.

G

*/

/*

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.

THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC.

On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net<mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:

It's called municipal broadband.

Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad model.

Miles Fidelman

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-profit models for ISPs.

On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com <mailto:veni at veni.com> <mailto:veni at veni.com>> wrote:

By the way , when my company was investing in development and building our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was very high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we didn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits...

On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . <ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com<mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> <mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com>> wrote:

  This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of

  who paid for telephone calls.

  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.

  The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow

  these lines.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of

  infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately

  disserves the purpose of net neutrality.

  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.

  Regards.

  Amateur Earth Station AC5JW <http://www.qsl.net/ac5jw/>

  On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles

  Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>>wrote:

      Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new

      competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own

      content services.

      Miles Fidelman

      Richard Hill wrote:

          Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the

          US because of the lack of competition in that country.

          Best,

          Richard

          *From:*InternetPolicy

          [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On

          Behalf Of *Veni Markovski

          *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41

          *To:* Patrik Fältström

          *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>

          *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be

          defined neutrally

          +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...

          On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik Fältström

          <paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se><mailto:paf at frobbit.se>> wrote:

On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond

          <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com><javascript:;>> wrote:

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.

          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?

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-overall-us-internet-traffic/

Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic?

          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.

          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.

          Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing.

          I am just explaining what I see the issue is.

          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.

             Patrik

          --

          Best,

          Veni

http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>

https://facebook.com/venimarkovski

https://twitter.com/veni

          ***

          The opinions expressed above

          are those of the author, not of

          any organizations, associated

          with or related to him in

          any given way.

          ***

          == 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.

          _______________________________________________

          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.

      --

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

      In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

      _______________________________________________

      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.

--

Best,

Veni

http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>

https://facebook.com/venimarkovski

https://twitter.com/veni

***

The opinions expressed above

are those of the author, not of

any organizations, associated

with or related to him in

any given way.

***

== 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.

_______________________________________________

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.

_______________________________________________

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.

-- 

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

_______________________________________________

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.

-- 

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

_______________________________________________

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.

_______________________________________________
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: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150302/ff3069ff/attachment-0001.html>