Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:25 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@thefnf.org wrote: On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote: In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. So why hasn't someone like he or cogent done this? Because 30 years later the big content owners still hate VCRs. Streaming doesn't bother them so much but they avail themselves of every opportunity to say no to the end-user recorded content. This is hardly a surprise... A century later they still hate the first sale doctrine too and avail themselves of every opportunity to undermine it. This UKNOF presentation gives another reason - the distribution of demand for content is such that content bundling, i.e. pro-active push of content to users' machines based on predicted demand, doesn't provide much benefit compared to historical cache, i.e. caching in the usual sense. https://indico.uknof.org.uk/materialDisplay.py?contribId=20materialId=slidesconfId=30 Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote: That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like Comcast for access to their cable subscribers. In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. So why hasn't someone like he or cogent done this? Especially for delivery into campus/corporate environments (which is a decent amount of the customer base for the smaller providers I think). Seems like a good market opportunity. I happen to be quite interested in optimizing video delivery (triple play, and streaming content) to an access network in Kansas City. For streaming, I know that Netflix has: https://www.netflix.com/openconnect that I can stick in the colo that the access network already backhauls to. Does Amazon have something like this? Hmmm maybe we can just peer with them at the nearest AWS POP. What are folks doing for optimizing Amazon streaming? As for the traditional content (hbo etc), my understanding is these can be accessed via wholesale agreements? Satellite downlink (lots of cheap real estate where I could have a downlink station), then I just need to be able to send it to my IPTV distribution fabric (fiber/ long range microwave whatever). Though I understand there is much DRM involved, and I don't know anything about any accounting / viewer reporting that might be required. So it really seems to me, that even with an established competitive access network (located in Kansas City MO) , if I want to offer streaming/TV content (and have all the pain that the big boys have) I might not be able to do it? I can of course peer with netflix and deploy one of their fancy appliances. See, all of this is so locked up and non clear. It's very un tractable to me. I am curious about even generalities of how this all works, where the pain points are etc. I suppose the incumbents are annoyed with folks cutting the cord and bypassing that nice set of carefully engineered video delivery plant, for that pesky ip based stuff (but maybe keeping the ISP portion of the service)? Why don't the access network providers just raise the internet portion of the cost to match the lost revenue? Or work out a Pay Per View type deal with netflix? (Like you can buy apps via your cell phone provider, why don't netflix/time warner work out a Pay Per View that you could get on your monthly bill)? It all seems very complicated to me. Why not just work out deals with netflix behind the scenes to help cover port upgrade costs or something? Instead of all this circus nonsense. That way, you would get your costs covered (by the people who are forcing you to incur that cost), and you would still get your monthly transit revenue. If I work on a particular project for a specific customer, I bill that customer for my incurred expenses. No one outside of me and the customer knows that, or needs to know that. I still bill them a recurring (hourly/monthly whatever) rate, and I bill them for one time expenses. But this world is mostly stupid, the cable companies never got VOD, so you have companies like Netflix filling the gap with pessimized technology. (I do see that starting tomorrow, there will be a Netflix channel on three small cablecos including RCN, delivered via TiVo, although it's not clear if the delivery channel will change.) Yeah that was interesting. I'm curious how that actually works. Will it be an app on the set top box? The other issue is that due to regulatory failure, cable companies are an oligopoly, and in most areas a local monopoly, so Comcast has the muscle to shake down Internet video providers. That's not a technical problem, it's a political one. In Europe, where DSL is a lot faster than here, carriage and content are separate and there are a zillion DSL providers. We could do that here if the FCC weren't so spineless. Yes. Agreed. I'm (with the Free Network Foundation https://www.thefnf.org) helping folks in KC and Austin build alternative access networks (using wifi, backhauled to neutral NAP locations). That seems to be the only viable option in the US.
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Charles N Wyble char...@thefnf.org wrote: On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote: In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. So why hasn't someone like he or cogent done this? Because 30 years later the big content owners still hate VCRs. Streaming doesn't bother them so much but they avail themselves of every opportunity to say no to the end-user recorded content. This is hardly a surprise... A century later they still hate the first sale doctrine too and avail themselves of every opportunity to undermine it. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Apr 28, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Barry Shein wrote: I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of, in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also controlling last-mile services. What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generally protected monopolies or small-N oligopolies. The wire-plant* operators and content providers need to be separated and competition needs to be mandated by allowing easy and fair access to wire-plants. Wire-plant operators should be closely regulated. Content providers should not, in general, be regulated. * Which of course may not involve any actual wires but it's a term of art, L1/L2 if you prefer. I kind of think Layer 3 - metropolitan area IP carriage seems to be where the issues converge. Somehow the notion of multiple IP providers, operating across unbundled fiber, doesn’t seem to work out in practice. It’s working quite well in areas where it’s been tried in earnest. Yes, there are a few municipal networks that provide Ethernet VPNs as the basic block of unbundled service - with multiple players providing various Internet (IP), video, and voice services on their own VPNs; and there are some networks, particularly in Canada, where the unit of unbundling is a wavelength, on a common fiber/conduit plant; but in most cases, economies of scale seem to dictate a single IP-layer fabric for a geographic area. (Think campus and enterprise networks.) If you build out a fiber plant with home runs to colocation facilities where providers can meet subscriber lines, the economies of scale can generally work and do in some areas. While active ethernet to the subscriber isn’t necessarily viable, GPON with the splitter at the MMR is just as viable as GPON with the splitter in the neighborhood. This was, in fact, discussed at length a while back on this very list. Owen
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote: Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte Where your statement is short sighted I already explained partly in saying its too difficult to decide who gets a free ride and who gets the bill so I challenge you to propose an actual policy that prohibits charging for peering that doesn't have major unintended consequences. All in all I am sort of disappointed to find so few rational opinions around here. One of the few decent articles I have read on it is here: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html I think if you make a law that says all content providers big and small get free pipes and the residential subscribers of broadband must pay the tab the cost of broadband in the US compared to the rest of the world skyrocket. No one is suggesting that all content providers get a 'free ride', let alone a legally-mandated free ride. Giving last-mile providers an implicit (if not explicit) OK to bill providers whose content happens to be popular with the last-mile providers' customers sets a horrible precedent. Content providers have infrastructure costs, just like last-mile ISPs. Your arguments seem to ignore that minor point. Those cost cover different things than what a last-mile ISP would need to cover, but they have costs nonetheless. They either pay other providers to haul their bits to other networks or they build infrastructure to locations that allow them to peer with providers. That could be to a mutually-agreed meet point for private peering, or it could be to an exchange point to peer with other providers who have a presence at the same exchange point. Look at the Peering DB. In general, you will see that content networks have more open peering policies than eyeball networks. It's in their best interests to get as topologically close to their consumers as possible. Some transit networks do the same, but that's a much more variable picture. jms
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Apr 28, 2014 7:37 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote: Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte Where your statement is short sighted I already explained partly in saying its too difficult to decide who gets a free ride and who gets the bill so I challenge you to propose an actual policy that prohibits charging for peering that doesn't have major unintended consequences. All in all I am sort of disappointed to find so few rational opinions around here. One of the few decent articles I have read on it is here: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html I think if you make a law that says all content providers big and small get free pipes and the residential subscribers of broadband must pay the tab the cost of broadband in the US compared to the rest of the world skyrocket. No one is suggesting that all content providers get a 'free ride', let alone a legally-mandated free ride. Giving last-mile providers an implicit (if not explicit) OK to bill providers whose content happens to be popular with the last-mile providers' customers sets a horrible precedent. Content providers have infrastructure costs, just like last-mile ISPs. Your arguments seem to ignore that minor point. Those cost cover different things than what a last-mile ISP would need to cover, but they have costs nonetheless. They either pay other providers to haul their bits to other networks or they build infrastructure to locations that allow them to peer with providers. That could be to a mutually-agreed meet point for private peering, or it could be to an exchange point to peer with other providers who have a presence at the same exchange point. Look at the Peering DB. In general, you will see that content networks have more open peering policies than eyeball networks. It's in their best interests to get as topologically close to their consumers as possible. Some transit networks do the same, but that's a much more variable picture. jms I'm sorry but all this talk of lemonade stands and metaphors is giving me a headache. It really is a simple case of supply and demand. You have four actors who may or may not be the same entity ( example: transit provider who is also your isp ). 1) User Who shops around to get the best isp who has the access he wants at the best price. This user does not need to know about transit and peering agreements because if they can not get their content they should, in a perfect world, choose an ISP who will. 2) ISP - For User / Content provider An ISP should recognize the needs of their customers and seek out the best relationships that will keep their customers paying them. These relationships should be formed out of mutual self interest either for pay or swap arrangements. The ISP should terminate / form new relationships with other providers that are in the best interest of their customers because their business should depend on being the best ISP available and keeping their customer's happy. 3) Transit provider A transit provider who may or may not be one or both of the ISPs of a user or content provider. Should form as many interesting and useful relationships to make themselves attractive to other providers. If they aren't providing competitive offers no ISP or other provider would want to make arrangements with them and their business fails. 4) Content provider These are the people who have what the users want. Their offerings compel users to sign up to ISPs which pay for transit who allow access to content. Content providers should partner themselves with the best ISP(s) or transit providers that give their content the largest reach to the most users at the best price. Content providers should use their content and money to make the best arrangements for their business or it dies. They should not have to worry about being strong armed for being successful because the market should be self adjusting. Example: if transfer fees go up and a better contract can't be sourced or arranged either the content provider re-thinks their pricing model or their business dies and should die since it would no longer be sustainable. In all cases each actor is paying their way making relationships that are best for their business with the immediate link or links in the chain of communication for delivering content. At this point we have to assume it is cost prohibitive for all content providers to form direct end to end relationships with all or majority of all users. Unfortunately this nice friendly free market of opportunity isn't true and because of that you now have actors starting to abuse their position. Which based on history shouldn't be a real shock. In an alarmingly high number of cases a user only has one high speed ISP to choose from. This allows that ISP to
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On 4/27/2014 9:57 AM, Rick Astley wrote: I wish you would expand on that to help me understand where you are coming from but what I pay my ISP for is simply a pipe, I don't know how it would make sense logically to assume that every entity I communicate with on the Internet must be able to connect for free because I am covering the tab as a subscriber. 0)No you're not. What you are covering is a percentage of the aggregate use model - the problem is what happens when you using 3% of your local end-node service capability run into the other 300 people who want to do the same. The use fees dont cover the bulk transit that is generally controlled through backhaul agreements so... I am not talking about JUST Netflix here as they are a large company more capable than some smaller ones at buying their own pipes out to the world. 1) The pipe issue is that of the last mile providers and not Netflix. The issue is the failure of the IETF to put controls in place which address this. It would be sort of the same concept of my grandmother calling my cell phone yet we both need to pay for our individual phone lines to at least reach the carrier tasked with connecting our call. Even if my grandmother calls a business, that business have phone lines they pay for. Technically this would be double dipping but it's been the norm for a very long time. How so? You are paying for the individual routing of data to that independent end node per the contract. If Grandma's cell and yours was covered under the same use contracts or shared minutes contract then that would make sense but otherwise they are independent services and whether that person is family or not they are a separate account - and billing. Hence 2 bills there. 2)The idea pertains to the concept that everyone has a digital persona and that persona is legally real, i.e. it has similar rights to their physical persona. In places like France this is now law. Now if we will lets talk about where this concept falls apart. Pretend I run a lemonade stand and my ISP offers to give it free Internet access, how generous of them! I then meet a businessman from town who is complaining about what it costs him to connect to the Internet because he has a lot of equipment that serves data to people all over the place. I see this as an opportunity to make more money and I say hey, they don't charge me at all for Internet access I will make you a deal, I will connect your equipment to them for 1/3 what you are paying today. Good deal says the businessman. I eagerly ride my bicycle home, pick up my phone, call my ISP and tell them the news Hey, thanks for the free service but I need you to upgrade my connection x5 because I decided to do content delivery for the businesses in town. Oh hell no says my ISP, that was not at all the agreement, your lemonade stand is still free but if you want us to carry the extra traffic you have to buy more ports the same as everyone else. 3)So the other issue is the Use Contract you have most likely has a no-commercial or minimum commercial use clause in the licensing agreement. Likely also a no-resale as a service as well in the same agreement so what they actually say is How long have you been doing this? and you reply you have been testing it for a month now. So they send you a bill and when you as the Lemonade stand operator get it and choke, and then call them - they say have you read the no resale clause in the contract? and its over. I didn't build a successful lemonade stand because I take being treated like this sitting down! Our now much larger volume of traffic is slow to the ISP and they are refusing to upgrade it for free, so I call up the media and have them run a story about how the ISP is intentionally limiting our traffic and they simply need to upgrade it for free. 4)Yes you do - and you scream how this is also racial profiling because anyone who hates lemonade is unAmerican or un-something. People are already paying for the Internet, if they don't give me my free ride they are double dipping! How so - how are people already paying for the service you are now talking about selling which you are taking from someone else in violation of their provisioning agreement? Public opinion is in, that mean ISP should be giving me my free access but the reality of the situation is perhaps a bit different. My lemonade stand pulled a coup when it became a content provider and demanded a free ride, and railroading my ISP for it in the media was probably a dishonest thing to do. How so? Again - your stand is a bandwidth thief and your business is breaking the terms of its end-user agreement with the ISP as well. I reluctantly agree to pay them for ports for content I am delivering but local businessman from my town has tasted blood and he's not done yet Who else has a lemonade stand with free Internet?! he proclaims. I changed some names to protect the Innocent :)
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:08:55 -0700, TGLASSEY said: 1) The pipe issue is that of the last mile providers and not Netflix. The issue is the failure of the IETF to put controls in place which address this. It's totally unclear to me that the IETF is the one who failed to put controls in place. If they were able to mandate anything, BCP38 wouldn't be an issue. pgpJrrraXArJQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of, in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also controlling last-mile services. What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generally protected monopolies or small-N oligopolies. The wire-plant* operators and content providers need to be separated and competition needs to be mandated by allowing easy and fair access to wire-plants. Wire-plant operators should be closely regulated. Content providers should not, in general, be regulated. * Which of course may not involve any actual wires but it's a term of art, L1/L2 if you prefer. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
Barry Shein wrote: I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of, in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also controlling last-mile services. What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generally protected monopolies or small-N oligopolies. The wire-plant* operators and content providers need to be separated and competition needs to be mandated by allowing easy and fair access to wire-plants. Wire-plant operators should be closely regulated. Content providers should not, in general, be regulated. * Which of course may not involve any actual wires but it's a term of art, L1/L2 if you prefer. I kind of think Layer 3 - metropolitan area IP carriage seems to be where the issues converge. Somehow the notion of multiple IP providers, operating across unbundled fiber, doesn't seem to work out in practice. Yes, there are a few municipal networks that provide Ethernet VPNs as the basic block of unbundled service - with multiple players providing various Internet (IP), video, and voice services on their own VPNs; and there are some networks, particularly in Canada, where the unit of unbundling is a wavelength, on a common fiber/conduit plant; but in most cases, economies of scale seem to dictate a single IP-layer fabric for a geographic area. (Think campus and enterprise networks.) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Kristopher Doyen kristopher.do...@gmail.com wrote: When last mile ISPs no longer have pressure or over-sight to maintain a business model that puts user's needs first, because a happy user is a returning user, you now have an entity who will do anything for a dollar as long as it can't be proved illegal for the moment. [...] I think Kristopher's email was a fantastic description of the situation, but I'd like to make one minor correction: you now have an entity who will do anything for a dollar full stop. Recent US antitrust litigation has tended towards penalties like promise to stop doing that, and make sure the lawyers get paid. (Sometimes the initial penalty is much higher, but it gets reduced on appeal.) Nobody goes to jail and the financial penalties don't threaten the profits gained from the illegal behavior. If a corporation stands to make a few extra billion dollars a year from illegal behavior... their worst case outcome is they're fined $100 million and told to cut it out... and there's a good chance they can postpone this outcome by spending $18.8 million a year on lobbying... you do the math (because they certainly have). (All numbers made up except the $18.8MM which is in fact what Comcast spent on lobbying last year.) -Robert.-
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double dipping. Nick On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access it again. I do not know if this provision would also include prohibiting intentionally throttling traffic on a home by home basis (#2) and holding services to the same kind of random is also prohibited but I think this too would be a far practice to prohibit. Bits are bits. From the routers article ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-internet-idUSBREA3M1H020140423 ) and elsewhere it seems what the proposal does not outlaw is paid peering and perhaps use of QoS on networks. #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Clearly it would not be fair to for only the largest content providers to be legally mandated as settlement free peers because that would leave smaller competitors out in the cold. The only fair way to outlaw paid peering would be to do it across the board for all companies big and small. This would be everyone from major content providers to my uncle to sells hand runs a website to sell hand crafted chairs. This would have major sweeping repercussions for the Internet as we know it over night. I think it makes sense to allow companies to work it out as long as the prices charged aren't unreasonably high based on market prices for data. This means if 2 ISP's with similar networks want to be settlement free they can. If ISP's want to charge for transit they can, and if ISP's want to charge CDN's to deliver data they can. Typically the company with the disproportional amount of costs of carrying the traffic would charge the other company but really it should be up to the companies involved to decide. Based on the post by Tom Wheeler from the FCC ( http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules) it sounds like if this pricing is commercially unreasonable (ie extortion) they will step in. Again I think this is fair. #4 On QoS (ie fast lane?): In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and classification marking that would really only become a factor under instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and journalists all seems to be unanimously opposed to this but I admit I am sort of scratching my head at the outrage over something that has been in prevalent use on many major networks for several years. I don't see this as the end of the Internet as we know it that now seems to essentially be popular opinion on the issue. Numerous businesses are using QoS to protect things like voice traffic and business critical or emergency traffic from being impacted in a failure scenario. In modern day hyper converged networks where pretty soon even mobile voice traffic could be VoIP over a data network prohibiting the use of all QoS seems irresponsible. The larger question is, is it fair for ISP's to charge people to be in a priority other than best effort? To answer a question with a question, if an ISP is using a priority other than best effort for some of its own traffic is it fair if a peer with a competing service is only best effort delivery? This is sort of akin to Comcast not counting its own video service against the ~250G/month cap of subscribers but counting off network traffic against it. In theory if some of an ISP's own services are able to use higher than best effort priority the same should be available to the business they are selling service to. If they go completely out of their way to intentionally congest the network to force people into needing a higher than best effort classification I would think it should fall into what the FCC calls commercially unreasonable and thus be considered a violation. So again, I think this is fair. I have numbered the items I mentioned from 1-4 being #1. Blocking #2. per household (last mile) rate limiting of a service (though rate limiting at all anywhere should probably be up for discussion so #2.5) #3. The legality of paid peering #4. The legality of QoS (unless fast lane is something else I don't understand). Feel free to augment the list.
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
I wish you would expand on that to help me understand where you are coming from but what I pay my ISP for is simply a pipe, I don't know how it would make sense logically to assume that every entity I communicate with on the Internet must be able to connect for free because I am covering the tab as a subscriber. I am not talking about JUST Netflix here as they are a large company more capable than some smaller ones at buying their own pipes out to the world. It would be sort of the same concept of my grandmother calling my cell phone yet we both need to pay for our individual phone lines to at least reach the carrier tasked with connecting our call. Even if my grandmother calls a business, that business have phone lines they pay for. Technically this would be double dipping but it's been the norm for a very long time. Now if we will lets talk about where this concept falls apart. Pretend I run a lemonade stand and my ISP offers to give it free Internet access, how generous of them! I then meet a businessman from town who is complaining about what it costs him to connect to the Internet because he has a lot of equipment that serves data to people all over the place. I see this as an opportunity to make more money and I say hey, they don't charge me at all for Internet access I will make you a deal, I will connect your equipment to them for 1/3 what you are paying today. Good deal says the businessman. I eagerly ride my bicycle home, pick up my phone, call my ISP and tell them the news Hey, thanks for the free service but I need you to upgrade my connection x5 because I decided to do content delivery for the businesses in town. Oh hell no says my ISP, that was not at all the agreement, your lemonade stand is still free but if you want us to carry the extra traffic you have to buy more ports the same as everyone else. I didn't build a successful lemonade stand because I take being treated like this sitting down! Our now much larger volume of traffic is slow to the ISP and they are refusing to upgrade it for free, so I call up the media and have them run a story about how the ISP is intentionally limiting our traffic and they simply need to upgrade it for free. People are already paying for the Internet, if they don't give me my free ride they are double dipping! Public opinion is in, that mean ISP should be giving me my free access but the reality of the situation is perhaps a bit different. My lemonade stand pulled a coup when it became a content provider and demanded a free ride, and railroading my ISP for it in the media was probably a dishonest thing to do. I reluctantly agree to pay them for ports for content I am delivering but local businessman from my town has tasted blood and he's not done yet Who else has a lemonade stand with free Internet?! he proclaims. I changed some names to protect the Innocent :) On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote: The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double dipping. Nick On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access it again. I do not know if this provision would also include prohibiting intentionally throttling traffic on a home by home basis (#2) and holding services to the same kind of random is also prohibited but I think this too would be a far practice to prohibit. Bits are bits. From the routers article ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-internet-idUSBREA3M1H020140423 ) and elsewhere it seems what the proposal does not outlaw is paid peering and perhaps use of QoS on networks. #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Clearly it would not be fair to for only the largest content providers to be legally mandated as settlement free peers because that would leave smaller competitors out in the cold. The only fair way to outlaw paid peering would be to do it across the board for all companies big and small. This would be everyone from major content providers to my uncle to sells hand runs a website to sell hand crafted chairs. This would have major sweeping repercussions for the Internet as we know it over night. I think it makes sense to allow companies to work it out as long as the prices charged aren't unreasonably high based on market prices for data. This means if 2 ISP's with similar networks want to be settlement free they can. If ISP's want to charge for transit they can, and if ISP's want to charge
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte -- the peer and the downstream. And not merely incidental to ordinary service - the peer specifically connects to gain access to customers who already pay you and no one else. Where those two customers have divergent interests, you have to pick which one you'll serve even as you continue to bill both. That's a corrupt practice. What sort of corrupt practice? You might, for example, degrade your residential customers' speed to the part of the Internet housing a company you think should pay you for peering. Or permit the link to deteriorate while energetically upgrading others to keep pace with the times. Same difference. This doesn't have to be true. You could bill downstreams for consumption and exclude the paid peering from that calculation. But you don't do that. And you aren't planning to. #4 On QoS (ie fast lane?): In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and classification marking that would really only become a factor under instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and journalists all seems to be unanimously opposed to this but I admit I am sort of scratching my head at the outrage over something that has been in prevalent use on many major networks for several years. It's prevalent on private work networks and users hate it. It generally disables activities the network owners don't approve of while engaging in doubletalk about how they're OK with it. Users don't want to see this migrate outward. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
* William Herrin On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte -- the peer and the downstream. And not merely incidental to ordinary service - the peer specifically connects to gain access to customers who already pay you and no one else. Where those two customers have divergent interests, you have to pick which one you'll serve even as you continue to bill both. That's a corrupt practice. It's not just that simple. If for example you asks for a peering with me, the first thing I'll do is to take a close look at how the traffic between our two networks is currently being routed. If I see that I have no monetary or technical gain from setting up that peering with you, perhaps because the traffic is currently flowing via an already existing peering of mine (with your upstream, say), or via a transit port of mine that's not exceeding its CDR, then I'd probably want you to at cover my costs of setting up that peering before accepting, at the very least. Even if I was exceeding the CDR on my transit ports, it's not at all certain that accepting a peering with you would even be a break-even proposition for me. Keep in mind that unlike routers and line cards, IP transit service *is* dirt cheap these days. So no, refusing a peering or requiring the would-be peer to pay for the privilege isn't *necessarily* corrupt practice. It Depends. Tore
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: [...] It would be sort of the same concept of my grandmother calling my cell phone yet we both need to pay for our individual phone lines to at least reach the carrier tasked with connecting our call. Even if my grandmother calls a business, that business have phone lines they pay for. Technically this would be double dipping but it's been the norm for a very long time. Hi Rick, It's slightly worse than that. Allow me to expand your metaphor just a little bit. You pay for a phone connection to provider X. Your grandmother pays for a connection to provider Y. The connection between provider X and provider Y is handled by long-distance carrier Z. Provider X decides they don't like carrier Z, and won't add more capacity with carrier Z. Your grandmother tries to call you; but due to the lack of capacity between carrier Z and provider X, she gets an all circuits are busy message over and over again. Provider X tells provider Y that if wants to get its calls through, it will have to pay additional $$s *beyond* what it already pays to carrier Z, in order to connect to provider X so that those calls can go through. Provider Y is concerned that your poor grandmother may have a stroke due to all the stress and worry that she is undergoing, due to not being able to reach you on the telephone. So, with a heavy heart, they agree to pay provider X to connect additional circuits to provider Y, at a much higher cost. To avoid having to go bankrupt paying those additional costs, provider Y has to raise the cost for your poor grandmother's phone service. In order to pay the increased costs, she is forced to go without afternoon tea on weekends. And there is much sadness in the universe. That's where we are today. The content providers and the eyeball networks used to be just fine being connected through intermediate carriers. But now the eyeball networks are refusing to increase capacity with the intermediate carriers, telling content providers that they either need to pay additional money to connect directly to the eyeball networks, or deal with congestion (all circuits busy recordings for their customers). Nobody's asking for a free ride (well, other than $low_cost_transit_carrier, but I'm leaving them out of this discussion)--what they're objecting to is having to pay for their upstream transit circuits, and then *also pay additional money to bypass congestion, and talk to specific eyeball networks.* Hopefully that clarifies the situation a bit more. ^_^ Thanks! Matt
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like Comcast for access to their cable subscribers. Well, no. According to Time-Warner's 2013 annual report, cable companies paid T-W $4.89 billion for access to HBO and Cinemax. No video provider pays for access to cable. The cruddy ones like home shopping and 24/7 religion have small over the air stations and use the must-carry rule, everyone else gets paid something, in the case of ESPN quite a lot. There's a reason that T-W bought HBO and Comcast bought NBC, to capture all that money they'd been paying out. There's two separate issues here: one is that the Internet is a terrible way to deliver video. The Internet part of your cable connection is about 4 channels out of 500, and each of the other 496 is streaming high quality video. That little bit of Internet is designed for transactions (DNS, IM) and file transfer (mail and web), not streaming, so when you do stream it is jittery and lossy. Furthermore, nobody uses multicasting, if 400 customers on the same cable system are watching Game of Thrones, there's 400 copies of it cluttering up the tubes. In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. But this world is mostly stupid, the cable companies never got VOD, so you have companies like Netflix filling the gap with pessimized technology. (I do see that starting tomorrow, there will be a Netflix channel on three small cablecos including RCN, delivered via TiVo, although it's not clear if the delivery channel will change.) The other issue is that due to regulatory failure, cable companies are an oligopoly, and in most areas a local monopoly, so Comcast has the muscle to shake down Internet video providers. That's not a technical problem, it's a political one. In Europe, where DSL is a lot faster than here, carriage and content are separate and there are a zillion DSL providers. We could do that here if the FCC weren't so spineless. R's, John
RE: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
At some point some the MSOs and telcos tried selling CDN to the streaming video people and they didn't want to partake. It was cheaper for them to keep streaming it off 3rd party CDNs. There are also some weird (dumb) legal/contractual issues around Netflix (or some other video provider) negotiated content residing on a box or even within a datacenter of another company who also has contracts with the content owner. All cable VOD for some time has been a distributed CDN albeit proprietary and ultimately delivered via QAMs, and still unicast. There are caches in headends and even further down in the access networks. The next generation of that is HTTP based though so any normal HTTP cache can be used. Comcast has contributed a bit to Apache Traffic Server as it plays a part in their next-gen video service delivery. I'd love to see wholesale networks. We saw that with DSL in the US quite a bit but eventually it all died out, and I highly doubt the ones running the networks would have allowed video services. All IP will happen on cable and once that happens most of the barriers to wholesale go away. So in 15 years things may be different. :) Phil -Original Message- From: John Levine jo...@iecc.com Sent: 4/27/2014 4:33 PM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like Comcast for access to their cable subscribers. Well, no. According to Time-Warner's 2013 annual report, cable companies paid T-W $4.89 billion for access to HBO and Cinemax. No video provider pays for access to cable. The cruddy ones like home shopping and 24/7 religion have small over the air stations and use the must-carry rule, everyone else gets paid something, in the case of ESPN quite a lot. There's a reason that T-W bought HBO and Comcast bought NBC, to capture all that money they'd been paying out. There's two separate issues here: one is that the Internet is a terrible way to deliver video. The Internet part of your cable connection is about 4 channels out of 500, and each of the other 496 is streaming high quality video. That little bit of Internet is designed for transactions (DNS, IM) and file transfer (mail and web), not streaming, so when you do stream it is jittery and lossy. Furthermore, nobody uses multicasting, if 400 customers on the same cable system are watching Game of Thrones, there's 400 copies of it cluttering up the tubes. In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. But this world is mostly stupid, the cable companies never got VOD, so you have companies like Netflix filling the gap with pessimized technology. (I do see that starting tomorrow, there will be a Netflix channel on three small cablecos including RCN, delivered via TiVo, although it's not clear if the delivery channel will change.) The other issue is that due to regulatory failure, cable companies are an oligopoly, and in most areas a local monopoly, so Comcast has the muscle to shake down Internet video providers. That's not a technical problem, it's a political one. In Europe, where DSL is a lot faster than here, carriage and content are separate and there are a zillion DSL providers. We could do that here if the FCC weren't so spineless. R's, John
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
I agree with all this, even the parts that disagree with me. -b On April 27, 2014 at 20:30 jo...@iecc.com (John Levine) wrote: That is, with CATV companies like HBO have to pay companies like Comcast for access to their cable subscribers. Well, no. According to Time-Warner's 2013 annual report, cable companies paid T-W $4.89 billion for access to HBO and Cinemax. No video provider pays for access to cable. The cruddy ones like home shopping and 24/7 religion have small over the air stations and use the must-carry rule, everyone else gets paid something, in the case of ESPN quite a lot. There's a reason that T-W bought HBO and Comcast bought NBC, to capture all that money they'd been paying out. There's two separate issues here: one is that the Internet is a terrible way to deliver video. The Internet part of your cable connection is about 4 channels out of 500, and each of the other 496 is streaming high quality video. That little bit of Internet is designed for transactions (DNS, IM) and file transfer (mail and web), not streaming, so when you do stream it is jittery and lossy. Furthermore, nobody uses multicasting, if 400 customers on the same cable system are watching Game of Thrones, there's 400 copies of it cluttering up the tubes. In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix. But this world is mostly stupid, the cable companies never got VOD, so you have companies like Netflix filling the gap with pessimized technology. (I do see that starting tomorrow, there will be a Netflix channel on three small cablecos including RCN, delivered via TiVo, although it's not clear if the delivery channel will change.) The other issue is that due to regulatory failure, cable companies are an oligopoly, and in most areas a local monopoly, so Comcast has the muscle to shake down Internet video providers. That's not a technical problem, it's a political one. In Europe, where DSL is a lot faster than here, carriage and content are separate and there are a zillion DSL providers. We could do that here if the FCC weren't so spineless. R's, John
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte I think this statement is a little short sighted if not a bit naive. What both parties are sold is a pipe that carries data. A subscriber has one, Netflix has one. They are different bandwidths, at different locations, and have different costs. Where your statement is short sighted I already explained partly in saying its too difficult to decide who gets a free ride and who gets the bill so I challenge you to propose an actual policy that prohibits charging for peering that doesn't have major unintended consequences. All in all I am sort of disappointed to find so few rational opinions around here. One of the few decent articles I have read on it is here: http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html I think if you make a law that says all content providers big and small get free pipes and the residential subscribers of broadband must pay the tab the cost of broadband in the US compared to the rest of the world skyrocket. I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free agreement is also a bit disingenuous in cases where the amount of traffic is sufficient enough to fill multiple links. Theoretically there are many times where the intermediary ISP can hand off the traffic to a last mile ISP in exactly the same building they received it in so they have very few of the costs of actually delivering the traffic yet are the only party receiving money from the content provider for delivery. This arrangement makes sense when the traffic to the last mile ISP is a percentage of one link but after enough links are involved the intermediary ISP is serving no real other purpose than as a loophole used to circumvent paid peering fees (right or wrong). I think if paid peering were made illegal overnight for companies big or small the landscape of the Internet would be completely redrawn and not for the better. I honestly think what last mile ISP's should do in this situation is to offer to provide transit for content delivery for a low cost. They generally have available outbound capacity to other networks and they can play the settlement free only card back at some of the companies they are in dispute with. If nothing else it would result in having similar traffic profiles and settlement free would start to make more sense so everybody wins. On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte -- the peer and the downstream. And not merely incidental to ordinary service - the peer specifically connects to gain access to customers who already pay you and no one else. Where those two customers have divergent interests, you have to pick which one you'll serve even as you continue to bill both. That's a corrupt practice. What sort of corrupt practice? You might, for example, degrade your residential customers' speed to the part of the Internet housing a company you think should pay you for peering. Or permit the link to deteriorate while energetically upgrading others to keep pace with the times. Same difference. This doesn't have to be true. You could bill downstreams for consumption and exclude the paid peering from that calculation. But you don't do that. And you aren't planning to. #4 On QoS (ie fast lane?): In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and classification marking that would really only become a factor under instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and journalists all seems to be unanimously opposed to this but I admit I am sort of scratching my head at the outrage over something that has been in prevalent use on many major networks for several years. It's prevalent on private work networks and users hate it. It generally disables activities the network owners don't approve of while engaging in doubletalk about how they're OK with it. Users don't want to see this migrate outward. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
RE: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
#4 On QoS (ie fast lane?): In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and classification marking that would really only become a factor under instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and journalists all seems to be unanimously opposed to this but I admit I am sort of scratching my head at the outrage over something that has been in prevalent use on many major networks for several years. It's prevalent on private work networks and users hate it. It generally disables activities the network owners don't approve of while engaging in doubletalk about how they're OK with it. Users don't want to see this migrate outward. Regards, Bill Herrin A couple of things come into play here, I think: 1. Prevalence of congestion on shared-bandwidth media, e.g. cable. 2. Who controls the QoS? A thumbsuck seems to indicate that #1 is high or at least significant enough to cause user-visible impact in e.g. places where cable internet providers in the US don't face any real competition. So, QoS measures can come into play in those locales/situations. For #2: QoS is good. Deciding which traffic gets passed and which dropped in congestion is, in and of itself, a good ability to have and can be a great value-added service. You want to run VoIP on the same line as your regular data but want to ensure your VoIP traffic gets through? No problem: Here's our QoS-Extraordinaire service! The concern comes from the direction the rules seem to be taking on this in shifting control/input on how QoS is applied from (a) just ensuring network-control doesn't get drowned out and (b) a value-add service where the customer picks their traffic prioritization, to an external party paying for preferred access to the BB-provider's customers. As a customer of BB-provider, this means that someone else now has control over how my packets get delivered based on a deal they cut with BB-provider. It's not about helping the end-user: It's about enriching BB-provider. It's another situation of opening up a two-sided market and fostering a situation where established players on the content side who can afford to pay BB-providers A through ZZ get beneficial treatment and there can be a larger barrier to entry to the markets occupied by those players. Yes, QoS should only come into play where congestion is involved. But, from experience we can see there are ways to let BE traffic degrade to affect e.g. latency-sensitive traffic without having to actively throttle it. Sure: the commercially unreasonable clauses *should* protect against that to a degree, but that's a very vague definition that creates a lot more regulatory overhead. Rather than saying you're not allowed to accept payment to prioritize one content provider's traffic over another's, the FCC would now have to investigate this situations on a case by case basis to determine if a specific situation is commercially unreasonable. So; basically, how much confidence do we have in the FCC's capacity/competence in enforcement of those types of regulations? We could also tack on that this could create a barn door situation, where lax or vague rules go into effect, the market decides, and then we have a helluva time trying to stuff the cat back in the bag because at that point this type of preferential treatment would already be an established/common practice. -- Hugo Network Specialist Phone: 604.606.4448 Email: hslabb...@stargate.ca Stargate Connections Inc. http://www.stargate.ca From: NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of William Herrin b...@herrin.us Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:56 AM To: Rick Astley Cc: NANOG Operators' Group Subject: Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're deliberately billing two customers for the same byte -- the peer and the downstream. And not merely incidental to ordinary service - the peer specifically connects to gain access to customers who already pay you and no one else. Where those two customers have divergent interests, you have to pick which one you'll serve even as you continue to bill both. That's a corrupt practice. What sort of corrupt practice? You might, for example, degrade your residential customers' speed to the part of the Internet housing a company you think should pay you for peering. Or permit the link to deteriorate while energetically upgrading others to keep pace with the times. Same difference. This doesn't have to be true
