last word from me on this:
I want assurance that users will have the option for full broadband
access to any and all Internet services. It is not acceptable that
some users will have no choice other than constrained forms of access.
If there were adequate broadband competition, it might be possible to
ignore this problem but there is very little facilities-based
competition. Consequently it would seem that some regulated assurance
of open access is needed. I won't repeat all the other points I tried
to make about non-discriminatory access, except to say that I believe
there is ample latitude for a variety of business models within the
non-discriminatory framework.
v
On Aug 31, 2009, at 2:43 AM, George Ou wrote:
Vint, I have patiently asked for clarification on 3 or more separate
emails to which you have not responded. If I misunderstood you, I
apologize. But you’ve made it hard to understand you since you
continued to ignore a few questions all the while criticizing usage
caps.
95th percentile is still used for commercial Internet access and
data centers. It has never applied to consumer grade broadband
which are sold for 1/20th to 1/40th of the cost of a commercial
grade connection. And because residential broadband is so cheap,
it’s not surprising that it’s also so oversubscribed. The problem
that the broadband industry faces is a lack of clear communications
and people mistakenly believe that “up to” means “at least”. So
again, you say you have a problem with this level of over
subscription but I hope you’re not calling for a ban on this
business model or level of oversubscription. Any ban or limitation
on oversubscription simply means prices either have to go up or peak
rates have to go down for consumer broadband, and neither is a
desirable outcome.
“what I am against is the broadband access provider making decisions
that interfere with the subscriber's freedom to go anywhere he or
she likes on the net and run any applications desired”
This does not happen on wired broadband access. Wireless broadband
providers however routinely sell you partial Internet access such as
the Peek Simply Email device which charges users $15/month for
unlimited email to 5 email accounts. At that price, I have no
problem with the carrier limiting what I can and can’t access.
Amazon goes a step further and tells me what websites and blogs I
can view, and the network operator even charges the content provider
for the onramp AND offramp which would be outlawed under Markey’s
3rd net neutrality bill. The tradeoff there is that I pay very
little money through the cost of the E-books. So there’s absolutely
nothing wrong with the carrier offering partial and even walled
garden access to the Internet so long as the terms of the contract
are clear and it suits the customer’s needs. The problem is that
when net neutrality bills want to ban this type of business model
because it doesn’t suit someone’s ideal of what the Internet should
look like, then there is the risk that the Internet will be
regulated to death.
So again I ask you, so that I don’t misunderstand you, do you
support or oppose these bills that would ban these limited use
Internet models?
George
From: Vint Cerf [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 2:03 AM
To: George Ou
Cc: 'Bob Frankston'; 'nnsquad'; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Simple questions
George,
you have either misunderstood or completely distorted what I was
trying to say. I actually think fractional access makes sense - it's
sharing of a broadband channel. I think that's fine. You pay a
fraction of the cost and get high burst rates. The only time your
"fractional share" becomes a potential issue is if the shared
channel becomes congested. At that point, you should be shaped in a
way that is pro-rated according your putative share of the channel.
what I am against is the broadband access provider making decisions
that interfere with the subscriber's freedom to go anywhere he or
she likes on the net and run any applications desired. If the system
becomes congested (regardless of cause), the then-current users
should experience traffic shaping commensurate with the fraction of
the access channel they have subscribed for. Essentially, your share
of the channel is a function of the "tier" you subscribe to and the
utilization of the channel by you and others who share it. There is
a question about oversubscription (a common practice in residential
networks). If the oversubscription is significant and if the channel
is regularly congested then you may not experience the kind of burst
freedom that you value in your note below. Your traffic will always
be shaped as a result. You would be well-advised to institute some
kind of measurement practice to figure out, in that case, just what
kind of service you are getting (peak and average bit rates).
When I was at MCI, we charged customers based on the 95th percentile
traffic rate they sent or received. That is, we ignored the 5
percent peaks and charged at the 95th percentile rate.
Users could subscribe to various tiers of traffic level depending on
their anticipated 95th percentile requirements.
v
On Aug 30, 2009, at 11:40 PM, George Ou wrote:
There is nothing “silly” about comparing fractional ownership of an
airplane to fractional ownership to a piece of copper or fiber. In
each case, fractional ownership means fractional cost and that means
little guys like me aren’t priced out of the market. What is so
wrong with a collocation offering 3% ownership of a 100 Mbps circuit
at $25 (other $25 for electricity and rack space) which is 2.3% of
the cost of having 100% ownership of a 100 Mbps circuit? Having a
service that can burst to 100 Mbps on demand that includes 3 Mbps
average for $25/month (I have the option to buy more anytime) is
absolutely wonderful to me. If we outlaw fractional ownership of
Internet connection circuits, which is something Vint seems to be
suggesting but refuses to clarify, then I’m either stuck with paying
$1100 or the ISP will simply cap my bandwidth to 3 Mbps with zero
usage caps. That effectively cuts my average performance down to
probably well under 1 Mbps even though I’m paying for 3 Mbps simple
because I cannot guarantee that my web visitors will produce a
consistent 3 Mbps demand. So the type of regulatory restrictions
that Vint Cerf is apparently lobbying for is harming small
businesses, which would severely curtail the competition for Google
because they’re one of the few companies that have the kind of scale
that can justify purchasing full ownership circuits. So the only
thing that’s silly and malicious is someone who would have
government step in and take away my flexibility and freedom.
