[opendtv] Re: Net Neutrality
- From: Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 19:36:09 -0400
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> "A QoS-enabled, high-bandwidth network met this challenge" Interesting
> words, but what do they mean by QOS enabled?
I don't think "QoS enabled" can be very strictly interpreted these days.
Schemes like ATM had very precise parameters for QoS, including things like
cell loss ratio, latency, jitter, and several others I'm trying to dredge back
from many years ago. And they also defined "class of service" differently from
QoS. So it was all very precisely defined in principle, but mainly what was
defined was the "markings on the knobs." Actually implementing the mechanisms
behind those knobs was another matter. There is an IETF working group that
works on ways to layer IP over other link layer protocols than Ethernet, for
similar purposes.
MPLS in principle provides even more adjustments than ATM. Same sort of
principle, though, where the scheme is used to create virtual pipes above the
link layer but just beneath the IP layer. Then there are less radical
techniques that try to accommodate different priority levels *at* the IP layer,
like Differentiated Services Code Points. So to me, "QoS" enabled sounds like a
generic term to say that this ain't just a "best effort" delivery network.
> The question in my mind is how these priority lanes can be used in a
> competitive context. Can a cable system use them to provide enhanced
> QOS for their VOD services, while competitors are forced to share the
> more congested lanes?
Sure. Let's assume that an MVPD/ISP decides to switch their entire operation to
IP. With techniques like MPLS, they can segregate their MVPD service from their
generic IP broadband service, to emulate the way their network bandwidth is
split out today. Today, they effectively use fast lanes already, although the
fast lanes are MPEG-2 TS broadcast and not IP. If they switched to all-IP, they
could continue to deploy "fast lanes," even if using a different mechanism.
That's why I think the FCC needs to formulate very carefully how to regulate
net neutrality, rather than getting stuck on something that already exists and
needs to be retained.
> Can a cable company offer priority lanes to any potential competitor,
> and if so, should there be price regulation (via Title II) to assure a
> level playing field?
Exactly! This is what the FCC needs to resolve. My admittedly not thoroughly
thought out first impression is, an ISP/MVPD *may* provide priority to its own
TV channels, really no different from what they do now with MPEG-2 TS
broadcast, but it should provide the same "best effort" delivery to anything on
the generic IP broadband pipe. And perhaps, the FCC should set some minimum
speed standards for a link to qualify as "Internet broadband service" (number
subject to change over time). A more radical change would be to split out ISP
service from MVPD service entirely, essentially turning every MVPD into an OTT
site. And of course, we already talked about splitting out the cabled
infrastructure company from the ISP.
> What is left is how the companies that operate the various components
> of the Internet compete. Some components are highly competitive today,
> some are oligopolies that try to push costs to the services that must
> use them, thus increasing costs for competitors.
I'd say, unfortunately, competitiveness has gone down dramatically since the
days of dial-up Internet, and we're now starting to see the effects. I think
that TV streaming, which has only recently become popular enough to make a
difference, was merely the catalyst that made this lack of competition problem
become obvious.
> ... for example, I live less than 0.94 miles from the CO, but the
> field tech I talked to told me I would only get 6-7 Mbps. But the real
> issue is price. I was paying AT&T more than I am paying Cox for 20 Mbps
> service.
I have to believe the tech was wrong. But in any event, the biggest cost item
in deploying broadband is most likely those home visits. My main point is only
that with xDSL or cable company coax, there's a lot of improvement possible
before home visits are necessary. I'm really not sure why Verizon chose to go
straight to FTTH, instead of taking a more gradual approach with higher xDSL
offerings as well. But I think it's very telling that they decided to give up
expanding FiOS, offering it to no more than 20 percent (IIRC) of the population.
> As I have pointed out however, the cable companies are investing
> heavily in reducing the number of homes on each neighborhood loop.
And that's expensive, even if actual home visits aren't necessary. I don't know
if it wouldn't be cheaper to offer their (dwindling number of?) analog
customers a new digital to NTSC STB, instead of going straight to
labor-intensive neighborhood work, but I suppose that's what their bean
counters are paid to figure out. I agree that small neighborhood head-ends are
ultimately going to be needed regardless. And BTW, the telcos can do the same
thing, because VDSL can go up to at least 52 Mb/s, if the copper line is only a
few hundred meters long.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
