Russ, It has been consistently hard to explain that diffserv is not a prioritisation scheme, even within the technical community, let alone to the regulators and the media. I think your comments as quoted are as good as we can expect from journalists.
It should be a matter of concern to all of us here that the US FCC isn't confused into regulating the technology. It would set a bad precedent for regulators in other countries. I am making no comment as to whether they should regulate carrier's charging practices; that's entirely a national matter that shouldn't concern the IETF in any way. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2010-09-03 05:47, Russ Housley wrote: > I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to > the press yesterday. Clearly, these comments do not represent IETF > consensus in any way. They are my opinion, and the reporter was told to > express them as my opinion. > > One thing that I said was not captured quite right. The article says: > "With services that require certain speeds to operate smoothly, such as > Internet telephony, calls are given precedence over TV, Housley said." > I actually said that DiffServ can be used to make sure that traffic > associated with applications that require timely delivery, like voice > and video, to give preference over traffic associated with applications > without those demands, like email. > > The whole article is copied below, and it is online here: > http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/tc_20100902_7144.php > > Russ > > ============= > > How Neutral Is The Internet?: Existing Limits Are In The Spotlight As > AT&T And A Consumer Advocacy Group Squabble Over Net Traffic > by Eliza Krigman > Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010 > > Whether the Internet is truly a democratic forum was called into > question this week in a dispute about Internet traffic management > between AT&T and the consumer advocacy group Free Press. > > The feud boiled down to what it means to have "paid prioritization," a > phenomenon viewed as anathema by advocates of Internet openness, and to > what extent preferential treatment of content already takes place. The > issue is at the very heart of a broader debate about what regulatory > steps are necessary, if any, to ensure the Internet remains an engine of > economic growth and a platform of equal value to people across the > socioeconomic spectrum. > > AT&T, in a letter filed with the Federal Communications Commission on > Monday, argued that paid prioritization of Internet traffic, contrary to > claims made by Free Press, is already a common practice of Web > management and consistent with protocols set by the Internet Engineering > Task Force. Largely unknown to people outside the technology field, IETF > is a professional organization composed of engineers that develop > standards for the Internet; for over two decades, it has played an > integral role in the management of the Internet. > > The current chair of the IETF, Russ Housley, disagrees with AT&T's > assessment. > > "AT&T's characterization is misleading," Housley said. "IETF > prioritization technology is geared toward letting network users > indicate how they want network providers to handle their traffic, and > there is no implication in the IETF about payment based on any > prioritization." > > Dedicated lines of service, according to AT&T, are examples of current > paid prioritization schemes, a concept Free Press flatly disagrees with. > > AT&T constructed "bogus interpretations of 'paid prioritization' that > reflect no arguments or statements made by the FCC or any proponents of > net neutrality," said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press. > The group calls paid prioritization an anti-consumer practice where > third-party content owners can pay an Internet service provider to "cut > to the front of the line" in Web traffic. It's a practice that would > lead to a pay-to-play scenario where only big business could afford the > premium channels needed to compete, net neutrality advocates say, > thereby squeezing the little guys out of the market. > > But AT&T dismisses those assertions, saying Free Press' acceptance of > dedicated lines of service as a management practice is hypocritical > given its stance against paid prioritization. > > "We understand why Free Press is upset with our letter," said Michael > Balmoris, spokesman for AT&T. "We outed them by shedding light on their > inconsistencies. After all, for years Free Press has used empty rhetoric > and faux-technical mumbo jumbo to demonize any paid prioritization." > > In the conclusion of its letter, AT&T implored the FCC not to limit or > ban paid prioritization, positing that it would be "contrary to the > goals of innovation, investment, and growth and contrary to the > interests of small, medium-sized, and minority-owned businesses." > > Most professionals in the telecommunications and Internet field > acknowledge that some content already does get right of way on the Web. > The debate hinges on to what extent it is appropriate and whether paying > for priority empowers networks at the expense of user control. > > "Wireless use is prioritized," said Steve Largent, president and CEO of > CTIA-The Wireless Association. "Your voice calls take precedence over > your data usage, your interactive data usage is prioritized over your > standard data usage, and your 911 calls supersede all of it." > > For wireless -- which operates on spectrum, a resource with dramatically > less capacity than physical cables -- prioritization is a big issue. > > "One strand of fiber has more capacity that the entire electromagnetic > spectrum," Largent said, explaining the need for prioritization. > > With services that require certain speeds to operate smoothly, such as > Internet telephony, calls are given precedence over TV, Housley said. > Otherwise, the call might be subject to jittery reception. In these > instances, Housley notes, the preferred treatment is consumer-driven by > the purchase of multiple products that share an access line. > > As evidenced by the spat between AT&T and Free Press, whether network > providers should be able to charge online companies extra fees for > faster delivery of their traffic to consumers is extremely controversial. > > The matter is under consideration by the FCC, which issued a formal > request for public comment Wednesday on whether open Internet rules > should apply to mobile broadband and specialized services. > > The notice was released less than a month after Google and Verizon > released their proposed policy framework aimed at finding middle ground > on the network neutrality debate. Their proposal called for barring > wireline broadband providers from discriminating against or prioritizing > lawful Internet content, applications or services. However, the > framework called for exempting fast-growing wireless Internet services > from all the principles except for transparency and allowing for > specialized services to be fast-tracked over the Internet. > > Public interest groups blast the FCC for stalling on a decision about > how to regulate broadband and protect consumers. Industry, including > AT&T, Verizon and CTIA, praised the commission for its fact-finding > endeavor. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
