[nycbug-talk] nyetwork neutrality, rehashed (was: some other crap)

Isaac Levy 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  
>> respect
>> 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  
> every
> 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?

> <snip>
>> Technology gets faster/cheaper at an expected pace, why doesn't  
>> internet
>> connectivity get faster/cheaper at the same pace? As a 'colo  
>> consumer',
>> and effectively an end-user of the internet, this is what I expect  
>> from
>> 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  
> cheap
> 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  
some... ;)

>> - Promote the advancement of networking technology
>> - Promote transparency of infrastructure
>> - Keep ISP's blind to users data, just focus on throughput
> <snip>
> 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.
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net/msg04878.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net/msg04891.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net/msg04916.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net/msg04889.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net/msg04904.html
> (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,  
>> regulating
>> 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
> Where did you get this data? This looks like complete and utter  
> bullshit,
> 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  
worth mention.

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  
> mostly
> clued customers, yet I doubt many of them want or need or care about  
> the
> truth.
>> - 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"  
> means
> dedicated as in "I can use 100% of my bandwidth 24x7 and not pay  
> extra".
> 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  
>>> the
>>> 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  
>>> routinely
>>> (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  
>> controls
>> which affect multicast traffic filtering up the ISP chain?
> Multicast is like IPv6 in many ways. Chicken and egg, nobody really  
> cares
> 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
>> loathe.
> 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  
>>> customers
>>> 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  
>>> giving
>>> 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  
>>> which
>>> splits monopolies vertically.  He says they have no ILEC.  There is
>>> one company that owns all the copper, but they don't provide  
>>> telephone
>>> 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  
>> see
>> him as constantly being stuck in-between massive telco battles  
>> upstream,
>> 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 mailing list