[discuss] [bestbits] [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality in the next Internet
Barry Shein
bzs at world.std.com
Mon Mar 9 23:16:46 UTC 2015
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!
The architecture being discussed is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Named_data_networking
where they call it "Named Data Networking".
The basic idea is straightforward enough:
Currently you access information on the internet by identifying its
location, usually indirectly.
Ultimately that location is identifed by an IP address such as
192.74.137.5.
*** IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN NOW SKIP FROM HERE ****
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.)
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.
At a lower level, once identified (located), our packets are routed to
that IP address probably passing through one or more routers.
That is how the internet works currently, in brief other than how
routing itself works.
*** TO HERE ****
IN THE PROPOSED scheme, Named Data Networking:
A unit of information, say an online book or movie, is identified not
by its location but by its content in some way.
*** YOU MIGHT BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL ***
*** OR YOU CAN SKIP TO HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN ***
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.
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.)
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.
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.
You can read the wikipedia page for more detail. The devil is
certainly in the details of how this might be implemented and used.
*** AS PROMISED: HOW THIS IS NOT A CDN ***
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.
** YOU MIGHT REALLY BE DONE READING UNLESS YOU WANT MORE DETAIL ***
That is, rather than proceeding to that location the CDN's nodes
intervene and respond with the location's content.
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.
But in a CDN you're still identifying content in terms of its
location.
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.
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.
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.
But you will get whatever is at that location you named, you don't
indicate what you want.
*** 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! ***
From: David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> >Is it just me, or does this
just sound like a very mild generalisation of t= >he idea of CDNs like
Akamai (similar services provided through Amazons AWS)= >? A concept
already in use by most large internet media providers?
>
>It does interact with net neutrality policy in some ways. A lot of the netw=
>ork neutrality debate can get into detailed discussion of when it is approp=
>riate for an ISP to charge for bandwidth, and if some bandwidth providers a=
>re heavily buffered this can make a difference (especially in situations wh=
>ere some hops, such as international links, are much more expensive to prov=
>ide).
>
>Cheers
>
>David
>
>On 3 Mar 2015, at 12:02 am, nathalie coupet <nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com> wrot=
>e:
>
>> According to Van Johansen (Slow-start algorythm), the Internet should cha=
>nge from a ''conversational" architecture with connections between two node=
>s at a time, to a content-based architecture that would use the memory stor=
>ed in the infrastructure through leveraging the existing buffering occurrin=
>g 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 househ=
>olds not from a single address point, but from everywhere to everywhere.
>>=20
>> Could someone explain in more detail exactly to what buffering he is refe=
>rring to, and how it would affect Net Neutrality?
>>=20
>> Thanks,
>>=20
>> Nathalie
>>=20
>> 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
>>=20
>> Having worked with those telcos on Internet service models I can assure y=
>ou that their goal is to maximize their return on investment. And their pri=
>mary objective is to move up the food chain and become application service =
>and content providers (e.g. Crave.tv).
>>=20
>> 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 delive=
>r Mordecai on-demand to a large number of house-holds, not to mention pictu=
>res of cats, food,...while our first responders have to deal with 20+ year =
>old communications technology.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Plus =E7a change, plus c'est la m=EAme chose.
>>=20
>> The information contained in this document is private and confidential. T=
>his document is not to
>> be copied, printed or re-distributed without the explicit permission of t=
>he author.
>>=20
>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 05:34, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>=20
>>> The other thing that strikes me from the later part of this thread about=
> business models is this:
>>>=20
>>> To what extent would the large telcos who don't like the FCC's NN decisi=
>on change their view if they weren't for-profit companies?
>>>=20
>>> You would have to imagine that at least some of the very strong oppositi=
>on from the Verizons and AT&Ts are because they want to maximise return, an=
>d charging services for priority is another way to maximise return.
>>>=20
>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 19:41, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wr=
>ote:
>>>=20
>>>> At least in the states, there are lots of examples of very well run mun=
>icipal electric utilities (about 18% cheaper on average, too), and that's w=
>ho's branching into telecom - they need the data nets for SCADA and meterin=
>g and such, and once you start putting people on poles to run wires.... Abo=
>ut the only places you can get gigE FTTH in the states, are from a small nu=
>mber of munis. Munis are also a very far cry from utilities run by a nation=
>al government.
>>>>=20
>>>> The problem with telecom, as with most utilities, comes down to right-o=
>f-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.
>>>>=20
>>>> Gary W Kenward wrote:
>>>>> I agree that monopolies are bad, for all market sectors.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> However, I still remember how bad the state run telephone services wer=
>e in Canada and Europe, and I haven=92t seen anything that would suggest to=
>day=92s governments would do any better in providing packet carrier service=
>s, particularly at the municipal level.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> The right approach is to begin with a revitalization of fair competiti=
>on laws.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> G
>>>>> */
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> /*
>>>>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL.
>>>>> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE COPIED, PRINTED OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PE=
>RMISSION OF ADROIT TECHNOLOGIC.
>>>>>=20
>>>>>> On 2015.02.28, at 09:30, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net<m=
>ailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> It's called municipal broadband.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Seriously - private, monoploy (or duopoly) utilities is just a bad mo=
>del.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems to me there's a good argument for cooperative and not-for-p=
>rofit models for ISPs.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> On 28 Feb 2015, at 13:54, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com <mailto:veni=
>@veni.com> <mailto:veni at veni.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> By the way , when my company was investing in development and build=
>ing our own network in Bulgaria, the price of fiber and cat-5 cables was ve=
>ry high. Yet we did it, and provided affordable internet for all. But we di=
>dn't have shareholders to ask us to cut expenses and increase profits...
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, ac5jw . <ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com<mai=
>lto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com> <mailto:ac5jw.kb5fck at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> This reminds me of the earlier times when we had that issue of
>>>>>>>> who paid for telephone calls.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> The discussion of late on paying for services seems to follow
>>>>>>>> these lines.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> I believe that net neutrality should consider the issue of
>>>>>>>> infrastructure delay and retardation because it ultimately
>>>>>>>> disserves the purpose of net neutrality.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Amateur Earth Station AC5JW <http://www.qsl.net/ac5jw/>
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Miles
>>>>>>>> Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse=
>.net>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Lack of competition, action by the incumbents to block new
>>>>>>>> competition, and action by the incumbents to favor their own
>>>>>>>> content services.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Miles Fidelman
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Richard Hill wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Indeed, as I understand it, the FCC has intervened in the
>>>>>>>> US because of the lack of competition in that country.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> *From:*InternetPolicy
>>>>>>>> [mailto:internetpolicy-bounces at elists.isoc.org] *On
>>>>>>>> Behalf Of *Veni Markovski
>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:41
>>>>>>>> *To:* Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m
>>>>>>>> *Cc:*internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internetpolicy=
>@elists.isoc.org>
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Internet Policy] Net Neutrality can't be
>>>>>>>> defined neutrally
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> +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...
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 28, 2015, Patrik F=E4ltstr=F6m
>>>>>>>> <paf at frobbit.se <mailto:paf at frobbit.se><mailto:paf at frobbit=
>.se>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> On 28 feb 2015, at 09:59, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>>>>>>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com><javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>> 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=
>all-us-internet-traffic/
>>>>>>>>> Does it pay fairly for all of this traffic?
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Note: I am not blaming the ISP for doing the wrong thing.
>>>>>>>> I am just explaining what I see the issue is.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> Patrik
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Veni
>>>>>>>> http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>
>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above
>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of
>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated
>>>>>>>> with or related to him in
>>>>>>>> any given way.
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =3D=3D 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> Veni
>>>>>>>> http://veni.com <http://veni.com/>
>>>>>>>> https://facebook.com/venimarkovski
>>>>>>>> https://twitter.com/veni
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>> The opinions expressed above
>>>>>>>> are those of the author, not of
>>>>>>>> any organizations, associated
>>>>>>>> with or related to him in
>>>>>>>> any given way.
>>>>>>>> ***
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> =3D=3D Sent from my phone, so any spelling mistakes are caused by t=
>he touchscreen keyboard. Also, that's the reason for using short words and =
>phrases.
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> --
>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>> In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
>>>>=20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>=20
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the discuss
mailing list