http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/09/paid-prioritized-traffic
-Hank
Is it remotely relevant what the founders anticipated? I doubt they
anticipated Amazon, Ebay and Google too.
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes to net access.
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to
happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why
so
many are against it when it comes to net access.
Because of net neutrality ?
Why not, we (collectively) already pay for peering either directly or
indirectly through restrictive peering policies.
Jeff
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't going to happen this model is used for many other outlets today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes to net access.
Because I pay my ISP for internet access. Not for google and their pre-approved
list of websites access.
Much like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, that's one of the many
"re-assurance" myths that one eventually abandons in the course
of maturing.
[cue endless thread of knee-jerk responses; can we just Godwin it
now please?]
Well, speaking as a web-based service provider, I oppose it because I quite simply can't afford to operate otherwise.
If we start having to pay for access based on geographical area or customer type or some other arbitrary classification we won't be able to stay open.
We have enough problems as it is, I don't need my ISP telling me I have to pay for transit on a per-destination basis.
If this becomes reality, we are going out of business, and I bet we aren't alone in this.
Who is paying for access to the Internet?
I thought it was the end-user / customer who was paying, that with their
payment is paying for the ISP to gain access to the rest of the net.
I would hope that my monthly internet charges would keep me from being a
set of "eyeballs" that are to be "monetized" by my ISP.
Otherwise give me the service for free...
--Patrick
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I pay for access at home, my employer pays for access here at work, and Google, Apple, etc. pay for access (unless they've moved into the DFZ, which only happens when it's beneficial for all players that you're there). Why should we pay extra for what we're already supposed to be getting. If the ISps can't deliver what we're already paying for, they're broken.
Jamie
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
[cue endless thread of knee-jerk responses; can we just Godwin it
now please?]
Of course Hitler was the first to propose pay-to-play internet
traffic. 
Consumers are more in need of regulatory protection than business
customers, at $19.95 a month they are viewed as expendable by many
of the companies that offer consumer services, and are often served
by a monopoly or duopoly, often at the encouragement of government.
They can't vote with their dollars as we like to say, and need some
protection.
However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
course) don't match the operational real world. Many of those who
are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.
Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
advertising applied. If my provider advertises "8 Mbps" service
then I should be able to get 8 Mbps from Google, or Yahoo, or you,
or anyone else on the network, provided of course they have also
purchased an 8 Mbps or higher plan from their provider. I don't
care if it is done with transit, peering, paid priorization, or any
other mechanism, those are back end details that will change over
time. I don't care if it is Google building their own network, or
you buying 8Mbps service from your local monopoly ISP.
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:32 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:50:21AM -0400, Joe
Provo
wrote:
[cue endless thread of knee-jerk responses; can we just Godwin it
now please?]Of course Hitler was the first to propose pay-to-play internet
traffic.
Well done.
Consumers are more in need of regulatory protection than business
customers, at $19.95 a month they are viewed as expendable by many
of the companies that offer consumer services, and are often served
by a monopoly or duopoly, often at the encouragement of government.
They can't vote with their dollars as we like to say, and need some
protection.
OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
I'm against more regulation and for competition.
However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
course) don't match the operational real world. Many of those who
are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.
Agreed. The bulk of the "Net Neutrality" crowd lives in a dream world.
Most (maybe some, maybe a few depending on your view) approach filtering
as a solution to a technical problem not as a money making proposition.
I have always espoused it only as a fix to technical (security, abuse
and the like) issues.
Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
advertising applied. If my provider advertises "8 Mbps" service
then I should be able to get 8 Mbps from Google, or Yahoo, or you,
or anyone else on the network, provided of course they have also
purchased an 8 Mbps or higher plan from their provider. I don't
care if it is done with transit, peering, paid priorization, or any
other mechanism, those are back end details that will change over
time. I don't care if it is Google building their own network, or
you buying 8Mbps service from your local monopoly ISP.
Explain how the provider of access is supposed to be able to control all
of the systems outside it's control to get a specific speed from a
content provider. If you are espousing contracts with each content
provider, then you will quickly be destroying the Internet.
We advertise a rate and ensure we have no congestion on our Internet
connection to ensure that all demands for traffic are met on our side. I
cannot ensure that site X will not be flooded or have other restrictions
on its bandwidth that will prevent your full utilization of the
bandwidth.
- Brian J.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
Sure - I would have to pay $$/mo if I wanted satellite radio. But failure to
do so doesn't interfere in the slightest with my ability to receive local
free-air stations, or impact my neighbor's radio. If 15 of my neighbors pay
extra each month to watch HBO or other premium content, I still get a
reasonable level of performance watching MSNBC in the basic-cable package.
That's the way it works for many other outlets now - you pay extra, you get
extra, but if you don't, other people's choices don't affect you. But it's
*not* how it works for the Internet.
Think about it for a moment - if the net is uncongested, then paying for priority
doesn't make economic sense. If it *is* congested, then the only way to give
priority to some traffic is to screw the non-paid traffic. That's the dirty little
secret of QOS.
For the sake of argument, let's call TCP's current implementation of window
management and congestion avoidance "the fairest and most equal we know how to
build". I don't mind fighting for bandwidth with 30 (or whatever it is)
neighbors on my cable feed on that sort of an equal basis. Yes, I recognize
that I'm actually sharing resources upstream, so my "6M" pipe may get sluggish
because I'm sharing with 15 people watching some live pay-per-view event. I'm
OK with that. What I'm *NOT* OK with is some media conglomerate literally
coming along and buying 4M of that bandwidth (that *I* *already* *paid* *for*,
remember?) out from under me, and using it for that pay-per-view event.
It's the difference between how mad you get at the supermarket when the
person in front of you has a full basket and was already in line when you got
there, and a person with a full basket slipping the cashier a $20 to cut in
line in front of your half-full basket.
Does that explain it better?
In a message written on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:44:40AM -0500, Brian Johnson wrote:
OK... so doesn't this speak to the commoditization of service providers?
I'm against more regulation and for competition.
Competition would be wonderful, but is simply not practical in many
cases. Most people and companies don't want to hear this, but from
a consumer perspective the Internet is a utility, and very closely
resembles water/sewer/electric/gas service. That is, having 20
people run fiber past your home when you're only going to buy from
one of them makes no economic sense. Indeed, we probably wouldn't
have both cable and DSL service if those were both to the home for
other reasons already.
Explain how the provider of access is supposed to be able to control all
of the systems outside it's control to get a specific speed from a
content provider. If you are espousing contracts with each content
provider, then you will quickly be destroying the Internet.
That's not exactly what I am proposing; rather I'm proposing we
(the industry) develop a set of technical specifications and testing
where we can generally demonstrate this to be the case. Of course,
things may happen at any time, this isn't about individual machines,
or flash mobs.
It gets more confusing. See media licensing such as ESPN3, which is provider based. Unfortunately, they treat it the same as they do the cable channel, so if you don't run video services, it puts you in a really bad position. It's also doesn't scale. Sure, with just ESPN3, we might be able to do some billing stuffers, but what about the next 50 video streaming sites that decide they want to do provider based licensing. How many stuffers can you put in with a bill?
Jack
Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic? | WIRED
No, the founders anticipated source-declared priorities for unpaid
military and government traffic. Commercial Internet really wasn't on
their radar.
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't
going to happen this model is used for many other outlets
today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes
to net access.
It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.
It'd be like the post office treating first class mail like bulk mail
unless the recipient pays a first class mailbox fee in addition to the
sender paying for first class delivery.
However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
course) don't match the operational real world. Many of those who
are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.
The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
location in each state in which they operate Internet infrastructure.
As a matter of simple fairness, someone else has already paid them to
move the packets. Why should you have to pay them more than the cost
of the port?
A small number of transit-frees would resent it, but it would damage
them only in that it levels the playing field for small businesses,
enhancing the small businesses' capabilities without enhancing their
own.
Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
advertising applied.
Now you're talking about something that truly can't happen. You can't
sell a service that, on paper, delivers less than the other guy's.
Advertising is a constant race to the bottom because that's the
behavior consumers reward.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
This genie has long since escaped the bottle, hasn't it? I remember the voip wars of the
late 90's where there was lots and lots and lots of hand wringing about qos... but how much
penetration does RSVP have, say? Approximately zero? And that's because, in reality, voice is
a tiny fraction of net traffic and all of the visions of RSVP and AAL2 and TCRTP and all
of the rest of the crazy things have basically come to naught. Does Skype care about qos? It
doesn't even care about RTP.
So the new bete noir is video and it's easier to be seduced because the traffic volumes are
potentially horrific. But i'll place my money on the bet that by the time any scheme to wring
money out of that volume could be implemented, the pipes transporting it will be asking what
all the hand wringing is about. Just like voice. The human and technological complications
of grafting qos/settlement on top of the net are huge in comparison to stuffing more bits into
glass.
Mike, brute force and ignorance always wins
From: William Herrin [mailto:bill@herrin.us]
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 11:05 AM
To: Hank Nussbacher
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,Prioritized
Traffic?
<SNIP>
Its unrealistic to believe payment for priority access isn't
going to happen this model is used for many other outlets
today I'm not sure why so many are against it when it comes
to net access.It's a question of double-billing. I've already paid you to send and
receive packets on my behalf. Detuning my packets because a second
party hasn't also paid you is cheating, maybe fraudulent.It'd be like the post office treating first class mail like bulk mail
unless the recipient pays a first class mailbox fee in addition to the
sender paying for first class delivery.
This is a pretty clunky analogy. First class mail is treated differently
(better?) than bulk mail in the USPS. There is no double payment for
this service.
However, the proposed "remedies" of banning all filtering ever, or
requiring free peering to everyone (taking both to the extreme, of
course) don't match the operational real world. Many of those who
are pushing for network neutrality are pushing for an ideal that
the network simply cannot deliver, no matter what.The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
location in each state in which they operate Internet infrastructure.
As a matter of simple fairness, someone else has already paid them to
move the packets. Why should you have to pay them more than the cost
of the port?
So for clarity... who pays for the peering?
A small number of transit-frees would resent it, but it would damage
them only in that it levels the playing field for small businesses,
enhancing the small businesses' capabilities without enhancing their
own.
HUH? Inanimate objects (transit-frees) do not have the ability to
resent.
Providers being forced to do something do not resent it (unless they are
personally Invested), but they do have to recover their costs and as
such would have to raise rates given nothing else changes.
Rather than network neutrality, I'd simply like to see truth in
advertising applied.Now you're talking about something that truly can't happen. You can't
sell a service that, on paper, delivers less than the other guy's.
Advertising is a constant race to the bottom because that's the
behavior consumers reward.
I'm with you here. Keep in mind that it is the CONSUMER'S RESPONSIBILITY
to understand what they are buying. I've seen tons of people buy
something, not understanding it, then, realizing their mistake, blaming
the supplier.
I have also seen providers blatantly use wordsmithing (is that a word?)
to "trick" people into buying there snake oil. Then hold people to
contracts entered under suspicious circumstances.
It's all so frustrating.
- Brian J.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
copying, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
The article seems to jump around between 1973 and 1998 pretty
easily. I guess for some "10 years ago" will always be "the early
internet".
That said, the author says AT&T hinges on the use of the word
'pricing' in RFC2475 which is dated December 1998, founders?
Besides, "pricing" is a term of art, like "cost". It could well have
been intended to mean money, just like "a big pile" could be referring
to money or it could be referring to horse leavings.
THAT SAID, I agree that the only problem is lack of competition.
I don't care if someone implements network non-neutrality so long as
there is a realistic opportunity for someone else to compete with a
neutral network.
Right now the net has oligopolized, largely through govt granted
monopolies.
*THAT SAID*, my suspicion is that the whole thing is a bluff and they
(for some value of "they") can't implement network non-neutrality.
It's some kind of big bluff to accomplish something else, probably
just to sell FUD to large customers -- ooh, we better get a link to
XYZ, otherwise when this non-neutral thing flies we're gonna be out in
the cold! Then they're gonna REALLY charge the big bucks to get on
their net.
Something like that, I could propose other motivations more in the
regulatory realm these players live in.
The network could deliver "cost-reimbursable" peering, in which any
service provider above a particular size is by regulation compelled to
provide peering at the cost of the basic connection in at least one
location in each state in which they operate Internet infrastructure.
As a matter of simple fairness, someone else has already paid them to
move the packets. Why should you have to pay them more than the cost
of the port?So for clarity... who pays for the peering?
Hi Brian,
Whichever party forces the other to accept peering under the regs.
Of course, that's not what would happen. People being people, what
would happen is that having been forced that close to balance, most of
the companies would go ahead and offer settlement free peering to
whoever showed up at locations where they peer with anyone else.
Ethernet ports are relatively cheap, even on big iron, and their
"generosity" positions them at the next regulatory challenge to say,
"See, fairness doesn't require us to unbundle our fiber services
because we already have open third-party access here."
And unlike open peering, unbundling really is expensive and difficult.
A small number of transit-frees would resent it, but it would damage
them only in that it levels the playing field for small businesses,
enhancing the small businesses' capabilities without enhancing their
own.HUH? Inanimate objects (transit-frees) do not have the ability to
resent.Providers being forced to do something do not resent it (unless they are
personally Invested), but they do have to recover their costs and as
such would have to raise rates given nothing else changes.
By stating "resent," I suppose I'm personifying a process in which a
large company warns of dire consequences for the consumer should it be
forced to accept reasonable regulation after which the consequences
either don't materialize at all or show up in some other way
significantly less destructive than the obstructed behavior.
Regards,
Bill Herrin