8 comments

• 

  Bret Swanson

  11 months ago

  Tim, what planet are you on?
  
  These are the very points we've all been making for YEARS. We've been saying that the NN advocates don't know how the Net works. That the content companies already purchase all sorts of bandwidth and SLA-level services from the network companies. That the CDNs already help speed priority content to priority customers. That new switching and routing technologies are already sorting packets based on priority. Yes, yes, yes. Keep letting these private architectures, partnerships, vending relationships, and prices evolve.
  
  Do NOT inject a new regulatory regime into this mix. It is ***Net Neutrality*** that would be the break with the status quo market of Internet technologies, products, and relationships.
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  11 months ago

  That the CDNs already help speed priority content to priority customers.
  
  Sure, but this isn't a violation of network neutrality. For the most part, CDNs are ordinary web servers that provide load-balancing via a clever DNS hack.
  
  That new switching and routing technologies are already sorting packets based on priority.
  
  Really? There's some of this going on on private networks, but I'm not aware of this occurring on the public Internet, and that seems unlikely to change.
  
  Do NOT inject a new regulatory regime into this mix.
  
  Agreed.
  
  It is ***Net Neutrality*** that would be the break with the status quo market of Internet technologies, products, and relationships.
  
  Here's where you lose me. As far as I can see, network neutrality (as a technical principle, not a regulatory scheme) is the Internet status quo. With rare and counterproductive exceptions, Internet routers route packets without regard for their contents. I think that's a good thing, and I'd like to see it preserved. I'm just not convinced that putting the FCC in charge is the way to do it.
  reply
• 

  Hance Haney

  11 months ago

  "To take Hance’s shopping mall example, this would be akin to Macy’s being required to contribute to the upkeep not only of the streets around its store, but also to the residential streets and driveways of every one of its customers, no matter how far away those customers live. That’s not how we do street finance, and it’s not how Internet pricing works either."
  
  Tim - I am not advocating that but I am also not advocating against it. If content and delivery providers agree to subsidize last-mile connections to some extent with advertising revenue -- as opposed to letting content providers keep all of it -- they should be allowed to do so.
  
  Remember, Google CEO Eric Schmidt suggested the possibility that cell phones out to be free, subsidized by targeted ads.
  
  Why would it be okay to let the market decide to subsidize cell phones, if it wants, but not fiber, coaxial or DSL connections? The only reason I can think of is because cable and phone companies used to be monopolies. But they aren't monopolies anymore -- not even close -- although here as in so many other places there is admittedly a problem of lagging perception.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  11 months ago

  Bret, I find much of the discussion on Net Neutrality, from those opposed to it, to avoid a very fundamental concern. That concern is that the internet users should have a guarantee that their information is transmitted.
  
  Congestion management is a concern, the problem that I have is that users really never know whether an ISP has a legitimate basis for failing to to route packets or if the failure to route a packet is simply a "dirty trick".
  
  When we go the the post office to mail a package, we expect the package to be delivered. If we are anxious we can spend $20 to overnight it, if it isn't time sensitive we can pay $0.42. However, we still expect it to be delivered.
  
  Anecdotal evidence based on reading many posts on this issue demonstrates that some companies cannot be trusted to deliver content. To resolve this type of demonstrated abuse without resorting to the evil word of "regulation" I would expect those opposed to net neutrality suggest an industry "code of conduct" to assure that content is delivered and not conveniently "lost". We can discuss pricing and congestion management till we are blue in the face, but it does not address the fundamental concern of requiring that content be delivered. So far, all I hear is monotonous chant "Don't regulate us", but I never hear anything about responsibility. If companies abuse their freedoms, then they deserve to be regulated.
  reply
• 

  Bob Brill

  11 months ago

  Tim: Thank you for the post, and your weaving of the technology and business explanation -- brought to mind Byte magazine last decade. I also cited you on my blog last month. Regards, Bob
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  11 months ago

  Tim says: "...CDNs are ordinary web servers that provide load-balancing..."
  
  That's not nearly accurate enough for this esteemed blog, Tim. CDNs are *networks* of web servers placed close to large pockets of consumers to deliver traffic more quickly than a single complex of servers can ever hope to do. They exploit the flaw in the Jacobson Algorithm that allows nearby senders to open their window faster than far-away servers. If NN were applied consistently with the fantasy that "all packets are equal" they would have to be regarded as a violation of NN.
  
  But if NN means anything at all, it means that carriers can't create artificial scarcity in order to extract monopoly rents. It's naive, because scarcity creates itself.
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  11 months ago

  Richard, that's a good point about CDNs. You're right that they're networks of web servers rather than individual webservers. But the point is that they communicate with each other using vanilla TCP/IP and don't get any kind of special treatment at the IP layer.
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  11 months ago

  Right, they exploit a flaw that the neutoids aren't even aware of.
  reply