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

Mon Mar 2 21:19:41 UTC 2015

Hello from Jane Coffin at ISOC.  Just back from an IXP start-up workshop.

Neutrality – location, treatment, pricing, and so-on is critical to IXP success – at least bottom-up community run IXPs (including IXPs like KIXP, Costa Rica, AMS-IX and more).  I suppose they are a critical example where there can be and you do find some neutrality.

IXPs assist a variety of networks exchange traffic through a switch – ISPs, NRENs, private entities – like banks, CDNs (Google, Akamai, etc.).  Three or more entities peering generally = an IXP.

Agree with Gary on the IAB guidelines.

From: Gary W Kenward <garykenward at eastlink.ca<mailto:garykenward at eastlink.ca>>
Date: Monday, March 2, 2015 at 10:00 PM
To: Miguel Ignacio Estrada <miestrada at gmail.com<mailto:miestrada at gmail.com>>
Cc: Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>, 1Net List <discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>>, "Brian E. Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com<mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>>, internetpolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>>
Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet

>From a logical architecture perspective, the IAB guidelines would suggest that the answer to your question is no.

An IXP is basically a packet switch (or collection of switches) connecting two autonomous networks.

Given the size of Google server centres, it is possible that they are treated as autonomous domains and are directly connected to an IXP. In which case, they should be treated like any other autonomous network.

If Google were to receive special treatment, it would be in contradiction to the principle of net neutrality, would it not?

Truthfully, I do not really know - Google is a large and wealthy company with a pervasive Internet presence. Such forces of nature tend to bend people's perception of reality.

______________________________________
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The information contained in this document is private and confidential. This document is not to
be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of the author.
On Mar 2, 2015, at 15:48, Miguel Ignacio Estrada <miestrada at gmail.com<mailto:miestrada at gmail.com>> wrote:

Isn't this "buffering" what Akamai, Google and so do by installing their servers on the IXPs around the world and storing on them the top 20% content viewed by those IXPs users?

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Gary Kenward <garykenward at ieee.org<mailto:garykenward at ieee.org>> wrote:
The buffering referred to does not really exist within the Internet. There are buffers associated with packet queues. Packet queues are limited in size, and are generally avoided as they add to packet delay and delay variation.

Regardless, IAB guidelines for the Internet architecture place all applications outside the Internet. Technically, Netflix is not part of the Internet. Rather, it is an application that uses the Internet.

According to this architecture, if Netflix wishes to reduce delivery delays to a localized subscribers, they should establish data centres closer to those customers (where "close" is measured in terms of delay though the Internet).

Hope this helps.

On Mar 2, 2015, at 12:16, William Smith <wc.smith at me.com<mailto:wc.smith at me.com>> wrote:

Take a look at http://named-data.net/consortium/.

On Mar 2, 2015, at 8:02 AM, nathalie coupet <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com<mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com>> wrote:

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<mailto:garykenward at ieee.org>>
To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro<mailto:nashton at consensus.pro>>
Cc: internetpolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org<mailto: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 to
be 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.

--
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.

--
Nacho Estrada | @acmuzic<http://twitter.com/acmuzic>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20150302/dd83948f/attachment-0001.html>