[opendtv] Re: Tim Wu's paper
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 09:40:42 -0400
On Oct 3, 2017, at 8:20 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In short, Wu is calling for some neutrality guarantees, not abdication, as
this FCC is attempting.
Missed it completely again...
NO SURPRISE.
I did not argue against the first five rules Wu proposes, although I believe
that there is still some disagreement about the bright line rule the FCC
imposed in 2015, especially the Zero rating issue.
But rule 6 is an open ended invitation for the FCC to go after ANYTHING not
covered in the first five rules.
Then there is the minor issue that the CURRENT FCC IS NOT calling for the
abdication of Net Neutrality rules. What it appears to be proposing is a return
the light handed regulation called for in the 2005 Supreme Court decision that
you took the time to share with us.
Thank You!
If some of what's in Title II should be modified, I've never opposed that
idea. I have opposed the FCC throwing in the towel, as if this is none of
their concern. I also oppose being disingenuous and clueless, on the
realities of what Internet service is. Insuring telecom neutrality has been
from the FCC's job, from its inception.
The real question here Bert is whether the FCC is even relevant anymore. We can
debate the value of the regulatory schemes set up a century ago, but that was a
completely different era. We can also debate the NEGATIVE aspects of utility
regulation as natural monopolies.
Craig blowing smoke again. Don't try this, Craig. It doesn't work. It's
generally still true today.
Correct Bert. Most Internet application do not require a high QOS to deal with
realtime latency issues. This will continue to be true moving forward.
But the major debate about Net Neutrality came to a head BECAUSE of the
evolution of the Internet into a multipurpose infrastructure that is now used
EXTENSIVELY to deliver audio and video. Wu acknowledged that this was becoming
an issue, which is WHY he suggested that the Cable Industry might disadvantage
new streaming applications relative to the in-band video services delivered
over the same wires.
But that never happened.
What we are seeing here is the continuous evolution of a global infrastructure
that supports all forms of communications, rendering some legacy infrastructure
OBSOLETE.
The classic wireline telephone service is dying. In many parts of the world it
NEVER EXISTED due to cost and the lack of economic resources to deploy wireline
networks. Today most of these unserved markets have moved directly to cellular
networks capable of both voice and data.
Clearly it is important to address anti-competitive and/or monopolistic
behavior moving forward. The current debate is how best to do this.
Maintaining state has always been the nemesis of IP. So, applications ARE
designed to take the vagueness of service quality into account. Like I
already described. This is the general rule, Craig. Exceptions to this are
few and localized, not Internet-wide. And they might apply to enterprise
nets, hardly to your home customer.
Netflix, Pandora, and many other services distribute latency sensitive IP bits
globally Bert. These bits alone make up a huge percentage of all Internet
traffic. They are not the exception.
"First, in today's environment, a broadband carrier could block traffic from
gaming sites. It could do it either by enforcing a contractual provision in a
usage agreement, or in the future, using its control of the local network to
block traffic from gaming sites based on either application information, or
the IP address of the application provider. Some carriers might elect, for a
given supplemental fee, to remove the filter for specified users. Under the
neutrality principle here proposed, this approach would be frowned upon.
Instead, a carrier concerned about bandwidth consumption would need to invest
in policing bandwidth usage, not blocking individual applications. Users
interested in a better gaming experience would then need to buy more
bandwidth---- -not permission to use a given application."
This is old news Bert. It reflects the realities that existed in 2003, when
some of the issues described were important because of the limited bandwidth
available, especially on “party line” networks. The application that now
consumes almost as many bits as video streaming is GAMING, and it is sensitive
to latency as well. What has changed is that there is adequate bandwidth to
support both video streaming and gaming, and tiered broadband plans that allow
consumers to support such applications.
Exactly. And this *is* why ISPs oppose neutrality mandates. Because they want
control. So, Wu's thesis is, the FCC should allow the carriers the freedom to
use only non-discriminatory controls, to keep their networks running. As
opposed to the FCC abdicating their responsibility entirely, as the lunatics
want.
ONE MORE TIME.
HARDLY ANYONE wants to abandon the fundamental concepts embodied in Net
Neutrality. You have pointed to the polls that show 70% or more of the public
support Net Neutrality rules. You then conveniently IGNORE the polls that tell
us that more than 50% DO NOT support heavy handed FCC regulation of Net
Neutrality.
But he did discuss the problem that new applications ARE and WILL BE
sensitive to latency,
Apps may not operate well over those satellite links that you mentioned,
because of latency. That's why geostationary satellite broadband is not
always a good option, Craig. Now, show me the knobs that will change this
physical reality, within IP itself. The simple fact is, Internet apps are
designed to avoid requiring QoS guarantees of any kind, with as wide margins
as possible. I gave the example of ads that don't throttle properly, though.
Not a fault of the protocol, it's a fault of the ad. This is true today,
Craig.
This is simply a statement of the current situation, relevant only to this
point in time. I started downloading movies via the Internet more than a
decade ago. I would start the download, then wait five-six hours until the
entire file was downloaded. Now those files reside in the cloud and are
streamed with minimal buffering. In a few years, with gigabit networks we will
likely return to the old download model rather than streaming, as it will be
possible to download an entire movie in a minute or two, if not a few seconds.
What is true today will be history tomorrow.
He did not attempt to close off the debate;
No, but Chairman Pai is trying to.
That is FALSE. He is working toward a return to light handed regulation that
complies with THE LAW.
"Government regulation in such contexts invariably tries to help ensure that
the shortterm interests of the owner do not prevent the best products or
applications becoming available to end-users. The same interest animates the
promotion of network neutrality: preserving a Darwinian competition among
every conceivable use of the Internet so that the only the best survive."
Yup. But you completely misunderstand what he said.
He said that government regulation cannot keep up with the Darwinian
competition that drives innovation. When the FCC interferes with the market, as
they did extensively over the past century, prices rise and innovation is
thwarted.
Wu suggest that government regulation “tries” to help ensure that the short
term interests of the owner do not prevent the best products of applications
becoming available to end users.
Sadly government regulation has delivered just the opposite - the protection of
regulated special interests from competition, and long delays in bringing
innovation technologies to consumers.
And this is the FCC's job. Not to hand over, on a silver platter, what a
handful of local monopolies prefer.
The only job the FCC has today is to protect the regulatory infrastructure that
enriches K-Street law firms and special interests who willing play the game to
protect themselves from competition.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
