It comes down to a question of whether Internet services are required
to be best efforts only; there are obviously many applications that a
best efforts, edge-managed system can't support, so the advanced
services loophole is a way to enable them to get done.
The neutrality lobby tends to demand no QoS management on the Internet,
so what else is a poor innovator to do but bypass the Internet when he
needs QoS? That's what the TelePresence-type systems do today.
RB
On 8/27/2010 9:51 AM, George Ou wrote:
The most extreme form of Net Neutrality
<http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/the-three-extreme-forms-of-net-neutrality/>
advocates taking private property used for delivering non-Internet
services and mandating that it be used for Internet capacity. I know
Bob would love to see this and he has no respect for private property
which he like others mistakenly believes is public property
<http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/techdirt-mistakens-broadband-for-public-property/>,
but it has no legal foundation.
The Verizon-Google compromise sort of defends the right to enhanced or
prioritized services so long as they’re not called “Internet”. That
upsets the people that want to mandate equal service regardless of
payment even though the Internet has always been equal service for
equal payment.
George Ou
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On
Behalf Of *Bob Frankston
*Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 9:09 AM
*To:* 'Ellrod, Rick E.'; [email protected]
*Subject:* [ NNSquad ] Re: Additional or differentiated services
Yes.
What more can I say – it protects the current business model against
the danger of being undercut by their most feared competition – users
with lots of bits.
We see a form of this in today’s story about NECN “NECN HD a tough
sell for Comcast
<http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/08/27/comcast_rivals_slow_to_pick_up_necn_hd/>”
Why not just make NECN, which is advertising sponsored, available over
the top.
Charter spokesman Tom Cohan said: “As Charter deploys new technologies
that allows us to use our bandwidth more effectively, we are adding HD
channels. NECN is certainly one of a number of channels that is under
consideration for future carriage in HD
At least FiOS says they plan to add it but we’re talking about a
signal that is broadcast from my city not that far from my house. Yet
I can’t get over the abundant local capacity all around me with 3+
broadbands [sic]. I have to wait for FiOS to add it. You can argue
whatever business model reasons you want but in the end I don’t get to
choose what I can watch. I have to accept what Verizon decides is in
their interest. They don’t want to risk a real marketplace where they
don’t have control.
If this weren’t bad enough I have to call FiOS support to find out why
the signal on 690 (Comedy Central HD) is coming in so badly. I’ve got
an IP connection with my VoD coming over IP over my Ethernet to my
STB. Why is Verizon setting aside the bulk of their fiber the cable in
my house that they poached from Comcast (who really owns the RG-6
Comcast installed?) for an analog signal when they could do it far
better over IP? That’s not the only problem with FiOS insistence on
pretending it’s 1950; even over IP they use brittle protocols that
live by and thus die by QoS.
So, yes yes yes. It’s all about maintaining a business model even as
the technology as left it behind.
*From:* [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On
Behalf Of *Ellrod, Rick E.
*Sent:* Friday, August 27, 2010 09:33
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* [ NNSquad ] Additional or differentiated services
I wonder whether Verizon's principal purpose in introducing this
qualification might be to protect the current model (used, for
example, in FiOS) under which cable service and Internet access are
two distinct services, with traditional multichannel video delivery
not subject to the kinds of conditions net neutrality would require
for Internet traffic.
Some commenters have seemed to assume net neutrality would
automatically mean that the traditional cable product would have to be
subsumed under Internet access, so that "over-the-top" Internet video
could compete on a head-to-head basis with cable operator-delivered
multichannel video. The exception in the Verizon-Google proposal might
be designed to prevent such arguments, not for some hypothetical
future service, but for current cable service.
Rick Ellrod
-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren Weinstein [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 4:40 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Google, Verizon, and Getting Real
Google, Verizon, and Getting Real
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000749.html
Greetings. Reactions to the "Verizon-Google Legislative Framework
Proposal" ( http://bit.ly/9EEEy7 [Lauren's Blog] ) have been
splattering around the globe ever since the two firms announced the
plan earlier this month ( http://bit.ly/cpO0bU [Google Public Policy
Blog] ).
. . .
Nor is it clear what sorts of services would qualify for the
"additional or differentiated services" offerings (that is, not part
of the public Internet per se) proposed by the framework plan.
Verizon's CEO, during the conference call announcing the proposal,
specifically mentioned "entertainment services" and 3D television --
but these seem among the more problematic examples -- especially given
the rapid advances in video encoding technologies (including related
to 3D).
. . .
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility):
http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad):
http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for
Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on
Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz
--
Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
