[nycbug-talk] nyetwork neutrality, rehashed (was: some other crap)
ike at lesmuug.org
Sat Nov 1 20:59:35 EDT 2008
On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:20 PM, Alex Pilosov wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008, Isaac Levy wrote:
>>> This is where Alex and I will disagree. I think we need neutrality
>>> badly, and I think that current ideas of neutrality don't even touch
>>> the relevant part and are so narrow they should be implemented as an
>>> obvious matter of course, and what we actually need goes WAY further
>>> than the discussion.
>> This is where I believe I'm on Miles' side. Alex, (and Marc), I
>> your views, but I like the idea of future Government involvement and
>> proactive regulation of network businesses.
> Crazy talk. Regulation is only necessary in case of monopolies. In
> other case, vote with your wallet. If noone provides service that you
> want, start providing it.
> Then again, you *may* be talking about regulation of the last mile
> monopolies, in which case, I agree.
Oh no- dude- we're on the same page here.
I a want 100mbps internet drop at my house from say, Pilosoft.
My budget is, Maximum, $100/mo.
I'm sure Alex would gladly provide it, if his upstream was cheaper/
faster/etc and if Verizon could drop the right line.
I mean, if you could get it for me, you'd sell it- right?
>> Technology gets faster/cheaper at an expected pace, why doesn't
>> connectivity get faster/cheaper at the same pace? As a 'colo
>> and effectively an end-user of the internet, this is what I expect
>> the net. Jokes and cynicism aside- when I see networks get saturated,
>> good things are happening- big picture.
> Last mile is a monopoly, that's why. IP transit *is* getting very
> very fast - we went from 1000$/mbit about 8 years ago to 10-15$/mbit
> today, and we'll go to mid-teens soon.
Gah. So it is getting faster! Gee, I wish my DSL provider told me
(and dropped my rates, or improved my speed a bit)!
(sidenote- can I run a patch cable from Williamsburg downtown to the
Pilosoft NOC? Er, better, some fiber... I'll go dig in my closet for
>> - Promote the advancement of networking technology
>> - Promote transparency of infrastructure
>> - Keep ISP's blind to users data, just focus on throughput
> In case of monopolies, yes, otherwise, hell no. I built my network,
> I paid
> for it, keep your hands offa it.
Huh? As an end user of a 'Layer 3' service, this still may suck for
me. Why should I accept a 'Layer 3' company mucking with my packets?
> I've went through this exact debate some time ago on nycwirelesss,
> so not
> to re-hash this, I'd like you to read this before posting.
> (particularly last one)
Excellent- the last one is definitely a good read.
>> - Legislate Separation of Content from Infrastructure businesses
> It is not a problem.
>> - Incentivize QoS honesty
>> - encourage pricing models based on speed/quality metrics
>> - provide incentives to discourage asynchronous connectivity
> Market already does this just fine, thanks.
>> - Get the state more involved with transparently, publically,
>> Telcos as a Natural Monopoly
> Yes, in case of monopoly.
I think we're on the same page with much of this Alex- you and I just
sit in slightly different sides of internet usage, (you on the
network, me on the servers/appliation)- and much of our vocabulary is
out of sync.
>> - Penalize ISP's for inaccurate service claims
>> - most consumer pipes are 60-80% sold speed
>> - most colo pipes (I've experienced) are 70-90% sold speed
> OMG IM PINGIN 10.
> Where did you get this data? This looks like complete and utter
> spoken by a gamer who doesn't have any idea how internet works, that
> it is
> not end-to-end, etc, etc etc. You know better than that.
No- I've never tested a pilosoft DSL line, but:
- Even 'speed-tests', from a given vendor, are always slower than the
sold-as speed- even if the location is right on top of the CO
- with colo pipes, (as a cabinet and cage consumer- with IP/Net
connectivity from the facility), It's hard to push more than 60mb on a
100mb pipe- even to servers a few cabinets away. Understandable, but
I know how the internet works- I know how networks perform- I'm just
fed up with all the soft-metrics.
>> - Incentivize measurable infrastructure improvements
>> - reduce barriers to network upgrades
> Market already does it just fine.
>> But outside of legislation, social changes can have an impact:
>> - Hold carriers accountable for their actions
>> - Make SLA's stick, all the way through the chain
>> - Demand honesty and sane transparency from network providers
> Except that most customers "can't handle the truth". Pilosoft has
> clued customers, yet I doubt many of them want or need or care about
>> - Help people realize the costs of the internet, discouraging 'the
>> internet is free' (cost) mentality
> That'd help. Clearly, it'd get rid of tards who think "unlimited"
> dedicated as in "I can use 100% of my bandwidth 24x7 and not pay
> I'm very much in favor of carriers placing GB caps and charging per
> GB -
> it is similar to abuse of dialup back in the day by staying connected
> 24x7. Unlimited does not mean dedicated.
Well, from a reality perspective on the network side- I agree with you.
However, the market has gone to selling different expectations- and
24x7 network saturation is something I tend to find ways to regularly
do... I think others on this list do too.
>>> It's nearly possible, and scalable, to deliver television over the
>>> public Internet. Currently I think there may be some big gaps in
>>> free software toolkit, and there may be some
>>> robustness/security/control-plane-DoS problems since it involves
>>> letting untrusted parties create state on router control planes, but
>>> it's already very advanced and I think is quite close.
>>> Also I don't think multicast will be safe without QoS to prevent
>>> multicast from filling your entire pipe, otherwise you could
>>> (albeit temporarily) DoS yourself off the Internet by subscribing to
>>> too much.
>> Ha- interesting- I'd never really thought of multicast used on the
>> internet this way. Are you talking about some kind of end-user
>> which affect multicast traffic filtering up the ISP chain?
> Multicast is like IPv6 in many ways. Chicken and egg, nobody really
> enough to multicast-enable their network.
>> And how do the big backbone providers, who have to run all of that
>> multicast, (it has to flow somewhere, right?), how do they get
>> compensated to maintain network load?
> Same as every other traffic?
No- I meant that with regard to the Over-Subscribe problem,
(effectively DDOS'ing yourself to oblivion), the multicast hast go get
filtered at some point- yet it *all* flows back up at the top?
>>> Currently cable companies are switching all their fiber to IP. They
>>> will deliver television to the set-top boxes over multicast IP. but
>>> they'll probably not let these IP packets leak out of their DRMbox.
>>> They might. They will DEFINITELY reserve the right to be multicast
>>> sources for themselves so they can sell your eyeballs to others, and
>>> keep your choices of TV stations tied to your choice of ISP.
>> Yuck. This is exactly the kind of Content+Infrastructure nightmare I
> Why? Nothing's wrong with that. If you had a *choice* of your cable
> carriers, that wouldn't be a problem.
Are you joking? I'd need to change internet carriers if I wanted to
watch a different TV show?
>>> If you're a Teliax or a Junction Networks (or Vonage), your
>>> will get much shittier service than if they buy the proprietary VoIP
>>> from speakeasy or time-warner. The ATM QoS and unsolicited grant
>>> features these ISP's are using aren't exposed to the user, nor
>>> available to bits received from random sites on the Internet. It's
>>> all walled-garden bullshit. They start with the VoIP the rest of us
>>> are using, then add a layer of wallpaper so we don't realize it's
>>> VoIP, and then quietly finish the job with proper QoS analagous to
>>> what banks and big corporations run over their WANs. That last step
>>> needs to be cracked open by neutrality legislation. It's about
>>> end users full control over their own Internet access, and not
>>> allowing ISP's to tie other services to your Internet service by
>>> deliberately crippling their own technology.
> (addressed in the emails linked above from nycwireless)
>>> I think Alex will favour a system he says the british are using
>>> splits monopolies vertically. He says they have no ILEC. There is
>>> one company that owns all the copper, but they don't provide
>>> service too, just copper. Everyone is a CLEC.
>> Well, this model starts screwing with my simple Separation of Content
>> and Infrastructure spiel- as it puts the IP layer in as a sort of
>> content layer.
>> I can see why (hypothetically) this would be beneficial to Alex, I
>> him as constantly being stuck in-between massive telco battles
>> and customers downstream.
> No, it's beneficial to consumers by letting *market* decide things.
Well, I guess we can just disagree here- not sure what else to say-
except that in the last few months, much of the world is shaky about
just letting the *market* decide anything.
More information about the talk