[IP] Net Neutrality question for IP list]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [IP] Net Neutrality question for IP list
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:32:55 -0500
From: Bob Schmidt <schmidt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
References: <43F50712.8070002@xxxxxxxxxx>
Dave, for IP if you wish.
I believe the correct answer is, it's fine for Bellsouth the cut a
deal with Cuban as long as they're willing to cut deals with Cuban
competitors.
Lessig's comments only cover Network Neutrality (which is essentially
limited to the Internet and provision by and interconnection between
backbone providers/peering points and by extension to broadband --
technologies which will be consumed by what's coming next -- and
issues which are basically becoming obsolete as telcos morph into
cablecos), and the Four Internet Freedoms posited by Michael
Powell (which are about as dumb and unimaginative as you could ever
expect any govt bureaucrat to come up with).
Lessig distinguishes between Network Neutrality and common carrier.
He says the latter is not needed.
Thus, according to Lessig, it would be perfectly OK for Bellsouth to
offer carriage of a particular special network protocol to Mark
Cuban's applications, but only if Bellsouth offers the same ability
to carry same/similar/different special network protocols to other
application providers in addition to Mark Cuban. It's not an issue of
whether any one particular application can or cannot be offered or
carried but rather whether doing so precludes others (i.e. Cuban
competitors) from doing something identical or similar (or however
else one would interpret "competitive") over the same carrier.
In the example Lessig gave in his Senate testimony, it would be an
issue of scarcity of bandwidth or the entire bandwidth consumed by
one provider who can afford to buy all of it, thereby excluding
competitors from purchasing. (But Lessig's is probably a overly
simplistic view of what is at stake since Network Neutrality applies
only to TCP/IP bandwidth and once the telephone company morphs into
cable company, there is no telling what protocols it will use to
deliver one way content. On the other hand, it is premised on what is
surely a faulty assumption - what proof is there that bandwidth is
actually limited? If we're seeing anything, it's exactly the opposite
- a never ending fountain of more and more bandwidth.)
It's an issue of limitation and discrimination rather than
differentiation. In other words, by all means differentiate the
packets all you want for efficient transport, but don't prohibit what
other Bellsouth customers/content providers can do.
It is also going to be an issue of interoperability and
interconnection between providers as opposed to what goes on in
closed systems/walled gardens. In other words, does Cuban have to cut
separate deals with every cable and phone/broadband provider in order
for his application to work, or will he be able to rely on end to end
capabilities across numerous backbone providers to deliver content to
everyone?
And it's an issue of access - make sure that all of the speediest
bandwidth cannot be sold out to a few providers already in business
today at prices that future newcomers would find prohibitive and thus
discourage them from entering/participating in the market.
It's also an issue of what the transport and application layers can
support - do they work only within walled gardens or will they cross
networks boundaries. Of course, the most likely scenario will require
the capability to do both at the same time - provide support for each
phone/cable ("ph-able") company's channels of service for the content
it carries and controls on a subscription basis to its own
subscribers - perhaps via proprietary protocols - and provide for
transport of applications (content) - via standards based protocols -
from independent sources that originate on other networks and
terminate in the home of the ph-able's customers who pay the
independent sources directly with no payment to the local ph-able company.
For consumers this framework is too limited to address the real
issues of the metamorphosis of phone companies into cable companies
since the "4 Freedoms" are limited solely to industry concerns and do
absolutely nothing to address consumer issues with Internet access
which revolve around consumer access to and control over the pipe in
both directions, not just the ability to use applications and end
user devices, read agreements and passively receive music and video.
For consumers, they're 4 freedoms without freedom, but that is what
we have come to expect from the FCC. Nicholas Johnson where are you?
After all, even a grandparent expects more from her internet
connection that this passive world view offered by Powell (as
paraphrased by Lessig):
Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have
access to their choice of legal content.
Freedom to Use Applications. [C]onsumers should be
able to run applications of their choice.
Freedom to Attach Personal Devices. [C]onsumers
should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to
the connection in their homes.
Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information.
[C]onsumers should receive meaningful information
regarding their service plans.
Sure, we're all culture consumers at one level. But the Internet user
who enjoys these "freedoms" is a one dimensional dumb pointer and
clicker and empty vessel to be filled with pay per view content, not
the independent, creative, multimedia-enabled communicator and
commerce agent that we know Internet users to be. Oh, and you can
read your service agreement, but forget about the freedom to
negotiate terms with your phone company or cable company.
Bob Schmidt
Author of The Geek's Guide to Internet Business Success
The First Book to Address the Business Side of the Web Design Business
At 06:13 PM 2/16/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Net Neutrality question for IP list
>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:10:10 -0600
>From: Floyd Ferguson <floyd.ferguson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
>CC: Floyd Ferguson <floyd.ferguson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Floyd
>Ferguson <f.ferguson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Rod Naphan
><Rod.Naphan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Professor Farber,
>
>I have a question about the net neutrality issue that perhaps could
>be clarified by some of the participants in the Interesting People
>mailing list.
>
>Professor Lessig, in his Feb-7 Senate Testimony pays considerable
>attention to "application competition" and the risks associated with
>"access-tiering", characterized as adding "an additional tax on
>network innovators based on the particular service being offered."
>
>It's not entirely clear how this differs from a definition of
>"service differentiation ... to accommodate heterogeneous application
>and user requirements, and to permit differentiated pricing of
>Internet service" [RFC2475], and which forms the basis for the
>Differentiated Services Architecture.
>
>So, my specific question is, within the concept of Network Neutrality
>advocated by Lessig, whether a broadband provider like BellSouth
>would or would not be allowed to develop and deploy a RFC2474-based
>service to offer potential customers like Mark Cuban, that could
>support unique application requirements, as for instance,
>substantially superior error loss rate or packet delay variation
>between the service access point and the residential connection of a
>BellSouth broadband customer, which would enable Cuban's application
>to successfully play video to the large screen plasma TV rather than
>a computer screen.
>
>Certainly one can with little effort imagine how a carrier like
>BellSouth could use such a protocol to develop services for a
>customer like Cuban to provide significant competitive advantage for
>video applications for BellSouth broadband subscribers compared to
>video applications from other companies not willing to pay for such a
>service. And how these differenitated services would yield
>significant benefit to the residential broadband user.
>
>Again, the question is whether this would be OK or not OK within
>Lessig's framework? If not, why not?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Floyd Ferguson
>Distinguished Strategic Planner
>Fujitsu Network Communications
>floyd.ferguson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>-------------------------------------
>You are subscribed as schmidt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
>Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/