Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/11/06, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, exactly, should ISPs be required to charge a flat rate? ... For just about everything in the world, the more you use, the more you pay. ... Why is data transfer different from the rest of the universe? Data, on the other hand, *is* in a different universe. Your ISP does not incur costs on a per-packet basis. That's not actually true. We just like to look at it that way. The shared network is always oversubscribed -- meaning the backbone capacity is less than the aggregate of all the subscriber connections. ... But this also means that the more bandwidth a subscriber uses, the bigger the slice of the shared network pie they consume. ... Now, pricing structure isn't just about bits. In many cases, the average subscriber usage pattern is good enough, so it isn't worth the hassle of metered billing. Just charge people a flat rate and be done with it. But that's a statistical business decision. The costs are still there. Right. So, if a carrier wants to charge Google more money because they eat up more infrastructure than GNHLUG does, that alone doesn't make me want to take to the streets with a torch and a pitchfork. What if it's not Google's ISP that wants to charge Google extra, but one or more of the other carriers along the way? I guess I would like to discourage a carrier from interfering with competing services - e.g. a phone company interfering with VOIP offered by some other company. On the other hand, I don't mind a company intefering with a DDOS attack or spam. But how to draw the line? - Jim Van Zandt ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/10/06, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:[snip] The Telco bill in congress is heading the wrong way.Anyone got links to actual legislation, existing FCC/FTC rules,bills, proposed bills, etc?S 2360: Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006 http://www.freepress.net/congress/billinfo.php?id=168Here is how senators are votinghttp://www.savetheinternet.com/=tally There is another informative site http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom/which lists Ben Scott as a 'Leading Voice' in the issue -- /me heckles Ben (See the box in the lower right corner 'Other Resources')Earlier you positted that people shoud pay more when they use more. That *is* the system in use today. I pay 50% less for a dial-up connection than I do for a broadband connection. I pay still more (10x) for a T1 connection. Quoting (http://www.freepress.net/deadend/=netfears) Networks have traditionally earned all their revenues through connections. Consumers pay $50 a month for a DSL line in exchange for access to everything on the Internet at the same speed and without impairment. Now the telephone and cable companies are getting greedy. They still want the $50 access charge. But they also want a cut every time you search on Google, buy something at Amazon, or make a phone call using Skype. It's guaranteed that consumers will pay the price in the end.I'm still looking for the information on what the telcos are specifically requesting, but it comes down to payment by senders in addition to payment by consumers.
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/10/06, Python [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 12:58 -0400, Python wrote: http://renesys.com/ is a NH firm that monitors the net.Someone there might have some insight.I poked around Todd Underwood's blog a little bit.He does not address net neutrality.http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/03/a_tale_of_four_carriers_att_ve.shtmlThis is about Internet mergers.Now I know where BBN disappeared. BBN is still around and they're independent again.GTE buys BBN.Bell Atlantic aquires GTE - Verizon. They want to keep the internet business free of telecom regulations so they spin the former BBNplanet stuff into Genuity. They keep BBN labs. Genuity is managed so Verizon can decide to merge it back IFF it does the right stuff in all the states they offer service in within 3 years.Verizon does the right stuff. Genuity has put up lots of debt. Verizon can lease dark fiber at 1/10 the cost of reaquiring Genuity. Genuity defaults on loans now that thier master plan failed. Layoffs bankrupcy follows, Level 3 buys Genuity (4.x.x.x and 3 backbones). Sells the web hosting to CSC.Meanwhile, BBN Labs is less entangled w/ Verizon then Genuity was. Verizon doesn't want to be under DOD contracting scruitiny for their accounting so they keep BBN seperate for the most part. Eventually BBN gets spun off into its own seperate company.I was at Genuity when Verizon said Why do we want to re-aquire you??. It's interesting that management didn't see it coming because the rest of us did. --Lloyd KvamVenix Corp___ gnhlug-discuss mailing listgnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.orghttp://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss -- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.- Daniel Webster
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 21:49, Ben Scott uttered thusly: ... Why, exactly, should ISPs be required to charge a flat rate? If I use more electricity, I pay more on my bill. If I drive a gas guzzling car, I pay for more gas. If I eat more food, I pay for it. If I print more pamphlets, or send more letters, or make more phone calls, I pay correspondingly more. For just about everything in the world, the more you use, the more you pay. Indeed, this isn't so much a law of the US as a law of nature. Why is data transfer different from the rest of the universe? I was going to stay out of this debate, but... With gas and electricity, both have a direct cost to the providers. The providers must pay x for each unit, and they charge you x+p for what you use, p being, of course, their profit margin. Data, on the other hand, *is* in a different universe. Your ISP does not incur costs on a per-packet basis. Data is not harvested from mines or wells at great expense. Data is virtual. It's not even provided by the ISP, but the ISP serves merely as a conduit for its transfer. And they must bear relatively fixed costs for *bandwidth* capacity, not for the data transfer itself per se. And most *do* charge on that basis -- for the bandwidth, not the actual data. Having said that, I will also state that I am NOT in favor of government regulation. The less government intervention, the better. ... Gov't can -- and often does -- do wildly innovative things. Granted, but irrelevant to the question of how regulation stifles innovation. I would disagree that government does innovative things. What it does, if anything, is provides funding and backing for innovative *individuals*. And hopefully that innovation is to the benefit of us all -- but usually that's not the case. Case in point: Real ID, which is something we must all fight if we wish to retain what few freedoms we still have. Real ID will only serve to give government even more control of us *law abiding* citizens, but will do little to stop what they will claim it is for -- if even those claims hold any water. But I digress. All your nifty examples of how government projects can be good are nice, but again, irrelevant to the question of stifling innovation. We must always be vigilant to keep our eyes on what our government is doing and what it claims is good for us. Unless you believe, of course, that the government is your friend. I'm not objecting on grounds that it's da gov'mint, but that regulation can easily become a stumbling block. This is true whether the regulations come from the legislature, or from a private industry group, or even from within an organization. A regulation -- a law, a rule, whatever you call it -- is a restriction. Regulations say one cannot do certain things, or that one must do things a certain way. There is no need for much of the regulations that are already in place in many areas. Regs bureaucratizes things and makes doing business far more expensive than need be without offering any real benefits, and on top of which creating all sorts of unintended consequences. I use the quotes because sometimes those consequences *are* intentional. Case in point: all of the reporting the banks must do to the IRS on transfers over $10K was claimed initially to thwart drug money laundering, but later it came out that the *real* reason was to give the IRS better tabs on what you and I as tax payers are doing. More control to the government over our pocketbooks. Sometimes -- I'd say frequently, but it's impossible to measure -- new ideas will come into conflict with old regulations. You already saw my QoS example. I think it's a pretty good one. All packets are equal would have made perfect sense circa 1998, but it would have made QoS for VoIP illegal. How about a law saying core ISPs cannot block traffic? Sounds good, right? What about DDoS'es? When SQL Slammer hit, ISPs everywhere blocked port 1434 and got the Internet back up and running quickly. Oops, we made that illegal. Sorry! The law can never hope to be detailed enough to be truly effective without consequences. Hence, this forms the basis for my assertion that: Government can never eliminate misery, but only move it from one location to another, usually creating more along the way. Also: the road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions. As well, politicians are usually not the brightest crayons in the box when it comes to technological issues -- or much else, for that matter. There are times where restrictions are needed. Thou shalt not kill seems to be a popular one. But I honestly believe we're all better off if we can get by without them. Agreed. And there ARE times we may need to kill. In defense of our families and loved ones, for example. I am very much the pacifist -- in theory at least. But I will not hesitate for one second to exact defensive violence to curtail
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/11/06, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why, exactly, should ISPs be required to charge a flat rate? ... For just about everything in the world, the more you use, the more you pay. ... Why is data transfer different from the rest of the universe? Data, on the other hand, *is* in a different universe. Your ISP does not incur costs on a per-packet basis. That's not actually true. We just like to look at it that way. There are two types of costs directly involved in Internet connections. (I'm ignoring physical plant, support, staffing, advertising, etc., for purposes of this discussion.) One is the cost for the dedicated feed to the subscriber (i.e., you). For DSL and leased lines, this is the local loop -- the pair of wires from your house to the local telco CO. For cable, this is the cable wire from your house to the tap on the pole. This can be seen as a continuous, dedicated, unshared resourse. It's only for the subscriber. It costs the same regardless of use. You statement is correct about this part. Once you actually get to the the interconnected, shared part of the network, things change. Multiple subscribers share the data pipes throughout the network. Switches, routers, concentrators, DSLAMs, etc. Ethernet cables, leased lines, fixed wireless links. These are all shared. The shared network is always oversubscribed -- meaning the backbone capacity is less than the aggregate of all the subscriber connections. This is the only way to do it, and is a big part of what makes packet-switched networks (like IP) so much cheaper than circuit-switched networks (like the traditional PSTN). For most subscribers, the feed is idle most of the time, so you can get huge cost reductions once you're in the shared network. But this also means that the more bandwidth a subscriber uses, the bigger the slice of the shared network pie they consume. If there's not enough pie to go around, the operator has to buy more capacity (equipment, lines, etc.). So my mom who reads email and browses the Ikea website has a *much* different cost impact on an ISP than someone who spends all day downloading porn, warez, music, and CD images via P2P networks. Likewise, a huge web site (like Google) has a bigger impact on the backbone then www.gnhlug.org does. So saying all subscribers are equal is wrong. Now, pricing structure isn't just about bits. In many cases, the average subscriber usage pattern is good enough, so it isn't worth the hassle of metered billing. Just charge people a flat rate and be done with it. But that's a statistical business decision. The costs are still there. This is not a new thing, either. The private dial-up services (AOL, Prodigy, et. al.) all used metered billing for a long time. Most so-called unlimited dial-up accounts weren't really unlimited, either -- if you tried to stay connected 24/7, you'd run into problems with the ISP. So, if a carrier wants to charge Google more money because they eat up more infrastructure than GNHLUG does, that alone doesn't make me want to take to the streets with a torch and a pitchfork. The fact that there's a lack of competition in the space of big Internet carriers *is* an issue, as it means Google doesn't have much of a choice for carriers. There's no market force to keep costs in check. As I said before, I suspect this net neutrality shitstorm is really a symptom of that. I haven't had a chance to review the documents that Greg Rundlett kindly linked to yet, so I'm still incompletely informed. Data is not harvested from mines or wells at great expense. Data is virtual. Sure, but the infrastructure to haul it around -- the conduit, as you put it -- is very, very real and very, very expensive. Having said that, I will also state that I am NOT in favor of government regulation. The less government intervention, the better. Gee, I'm shocked to hear that from you, Fred. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Thursday 11 May 2006 08:59, Tom Buskey uttered thusly: ... I was at Genuity when Verizon said Why do we want to re-aquire you??. It's interesting that management didn't see it coming because the rest of us did. That's typical. Management of large corporations typically live in a different world that is not congruent to reality. I've seen this time and again at many places -- Commodore, ADP, First Data, etc. The management at Cisco Systems do seem to have half a clue, but Cisco has other issues. Still, Cisco is the best big company I've ever worked for. Commodore was the worst in a lot of ways, but it was still cool working for the company that made the Amiga possible. We used to lament the foibles of Upper Management there all the time, and the wonderful marketing force Commodore had. In fact, it was a running joke that: How would Commodore market Sushi? Cold, Dead, Raw Fish. May Commodore Rest In Peace. That is one big Cold, Dead, Raw Fish that expended great effort to put itself in the grave. Much to the frustration of us engineers. -Fred ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 10:11 -0400, Fred wrote: As well, politicians are usually not the brightest crayons in the box when it comes to technological issues -- or much else, for that matter. I think that's unfair. The politicians I've actually met are bright, capable people. -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/9/06, Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The information super highway must not be made into a censored toll-lane. I'm gonna dust off my There is no Internet mini-essay for this: -- There is this myth that the Internet exists as a single, cohesive network. It does not, and never has. The Internet is a network of networks. What that means is that a bunch of independent network operators have agreed to exchange traffic with each other because it benefits them. When you dial in to your ISP of choice (or plug in your Ethernet cable or whatever), you're not connecting to the Internet. You're connecting to your ISP. Your ISP probably connects to their ISP. Their ISP (if you're lucky) connects to several other ISPs, who connect to other ISPs, and so on. All these independent network operators form the Internet. To put this in more immediate terms: If I am your ISP, you are not connecting to the Internet. You are connecting to *my* network. You and I might have an agreement that in exchange for a monthly fee, I'll pass on your packets to someone else, but you're still using *my* network. If you don't like what I do with your packets, you're free to stop using my network, but you don't get to tell me how to run my network. So, the Internet exists as an abstract concept (and a useful one), but not as something you can touch. Not even as something you can route traffic through. All you can do is connect to some other guy's network and hope for the best. The idea that the Internet is this utopian cyberspace where everybody is equal is a myth, and always has been. -- I say this not because I think the big telcos should be allowed to do this, but because this the free Internet thing needs a reality check. -- Ben There is no Internet Scott ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/10/06, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --There is this myth that the Internet exists as a single, cohesivenetwork. It does not, and never has. The Internet is a network ofnetworks. What that means is that a bunch of independent network operators have agreed to exchange traffic with each other because itbenefits them. When you dial in to your ISP of choice (or plug in yourEthernet cable or whatever), you're not connecting to the Internet. You're connecting to your ISP. Your ISP probably connects to theirISP. Their ISP (if you're lucky) connects to several other ISPs, whoconnect to other ISPs, and so on.All these independent networkoperators form the Internet. I'm old enought to remember before web browsers when I was in college. My college was on Bitnet (Because It's There) which connected at 9600 baud IIRC. Somewhere, there was a gateway that connected to the Arpanet (which morphed into what we think of as today's internet). There was telenet, Fidonet (BBS based with modems PC and a store and forward system for mail and file transfer), UUCP base networks (usenet?) and several others. Arpanet was originally for government and research. No commercial traffic was supposed to travel on it. There were newsgroups for selling/buying stuff that was a grey area. Heck, I sold a macintosh SE on it and at work bought a Sparc 1 motherboard. It took faith to buy something before eBay! UUNET started to create another backbone (I forget the name) that allowed commercial traffic. This eventually led to AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy and others to have an email gateway for thier users.At some point, just after Mosaic came out (for the macintosh?, before the PC version certainly) Arpanet split into MILNET for the .mil sites and the rest of the net. -- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.- Daniel Webster
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/10/06, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm old enought to remember before web browsers when I was in college. It wasn't *that* long ago. :) Arpanet was originally for government and research. No commercial traffic was supposed to travel on it. Right. Back then, the ISP would have been the university, or some government agency. As you note, things were even more restricted back then. No commercial use (in theory), and a somewhat exclusive nature. The current idea that you can plunk down some cash and get an Internet connection came latter. Back then, you needed to know someone, so to speak. If the local admins decided your usage was getting in the way of the real users, I'd guess they would probably just disable your access. It took faith to buy something before eBay! Still does. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
All you can do is connect to some other guy's network and hope for the best. The idea that the Internet is this utopian cyberspace where everybody is equal is a myth, and always has been. Your observations about the Internet are dead-on, and should be remembered. But I would disagree with the above, just because it seems rather self-defeatist. If we desire the Internet to reflect some of our American attitudes of free speech and to have a semi-Bill of Rights flavor, we *can* make it that way. We do have a (semi-functional) political/legal system and can mandate that ISPs function as utilitarian common carriers. Regards, . Randy -- The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 10:35 -0400, Randy Edwards wrote: If we desire the Internet to reflect some of our American attitudes of free speech and to have a semi-Bill of Rights flavor, we *can* make it that way. We do have a (semi-functional) political/legal system and can mandate that ISPs function as utilitarian common carriers. I see ... and you intend to enforce this on Chinese ISPs how? My point is that not only does the Internet not exist, it's not American either. 8) It is the concept of a bunch of networks connected together ... and not only within the US. -- Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
I hate this sort of reasoning - it's the same defeatist attitude that leads people to justify buying an SUV instead of an efficient vehicle when gas-saving is under discussion. Well China buys more barrels every day than SUVs use over hybrids in a year - SO WHAT? Last time I optimized code, each optimization contributed practically nothing to the program speed - yet keeping it in mind increased overall execution speed almost 30%. Little things add up. (And the US isn't so little, in Internet terms.) We should make an effort to keep as much of the 'net free of cruft as possible. Do you USE much of the portion of the Internet that's in China? If not, why are you bringing it up? ;-) I understand that the internet is international - that has no particular bearing on keeping the parts we CAN have some impact on free/good/useful. Why should we make the connection to our houses faster - it has essentially no impact on the speed of the net in general. Sorry for the rant - that particular line of reasoning fills me with unreasoning anger. --DTVZ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
In addition to Cole's astute observation... On 5/10/06, Randy Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All you can do is connect to some other guy's network and hope for the best. The idea that the Internet is this utopian cyberspace where everybody is equal is a myth, and always has been. But I would disagree with the above, just because it seems rather self-defeatist. It's only defeatist if it doesn't match your own goals. ;-) If we desire the Internet to reflect some of our American attitudes of free speech and to have a semi-Bill of Rights flavor, we *can* make it that way. We do have a (semi-functional) political/legal system and can mandate that ISPs function as utilitarian common carriers. American attitudes also include a strong dose of capitalism and the free market. Some would argue that the market should decide the rates we pay for Internet connectivity, and that regulating ISPs will only stifle innovation[1]. As many are fond of observing, free press is about the freedom to print what you want; it has nothing to do with how much it costs you to print it. Playing the innovation card isn't just an ideological knee-jerk response, either. For example, say we pass a law that says all packets are equal. That would make QoS illegal, which would suck for VoIP. Never forget about The Law of Unintended Consequences. We can also turn the argument around. If I can afford it, why *shouldn't* I be able to pay extra to have my packets delivered first? Shall we outlaw FedEx, since it means big business can afford to have their mail delivered sooner? I'm not defending the big telcos, believe me. I object to a lot of what they do as anti-competitive. The free market stops working when a few large players dominate. I think the solution, though, is to treat the disease, not the symptoms. Rather then trying to dream up laws to regulate the Internet, we should go after the disease: This cancer that the big telcos are becoming (again). Since we're on this subject, and I believe it is relevant to all of us: I've seen tons of rhetoric around this issue, but very little hard fact. Is there any *real* information out there? The www.savetheinternet.com site contains nothing but sensationalist propaganda. (The fact that I happen to sympathize with the sensationalist propaganda doesn't change what it is.) Footnotes - [1] Here, I use he original meaning of the term innovation, not Microsoft's default answer to every anti-trust allegation. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
I see ... and you intend to enforce this on Chinese ISPs how? Obviously it can't be done. But that Chinese telecomm company isn't running copper to my house. What can be done, again, is to make US ISPs function as neutral common carriers. That's relatively easy to do -- it just takes some political will. Regards, . Randy -- If computers have made me more productive, how come I'm not working less? Who's getting the profits from my increased productivity?! ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 10:59 -0400, Drew Van Zandt wrote: I hate this sort of reasoning - it's the same defeatist attitude that leads people to justify buying an SUV instead of an efficient vehicle when gas-saving is under discussion. I understand how you would interpret it this way, but I definitely do not perceive my viewpoint as defeatist at all. My point is more that the viewpoint you hold is that your way is the right way to run the Internet. As we've established the Internet doesn't actually exist, we need to look at this as trying to assign policy to a very wide range of networks. I would argue that trying to create a blanket policy to such a diversity is folly. Different networks have different needs. The policies of some of these networks are governed by the cultural biases of the country/group/whatever that own and run them (much like ourselves). If we want to turn this discussion more towards we should mandate this neutrality for all US networks then! I would still disagree. For one thing, it's a bit difficult to constitute what are American networks or not. If a network is in Canada, but run by an American company can we mandate this? What if *part* of a network is in the US and part not? And what of specialty providers? I know one company that specializes in setting up networks for optimizing video transmissions. They allow their customers to connect to external resources, of course, but they give preference to their own video traffic because that's the service they're selling. Should we now tell them that they are no longer allowed to practice that business model? -- Cole Tuininga [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 11:13 -0400, Ben Scott wrote: Since we're on this subject, and I believe it is relevant to all of us: I've seen tons of rhetoric around this issue, but very little hard fact. Is there any *real* information out there? The www.savetheinternet.com site contains nothing but sensationalist propaganda. (The fact that I happen to sympathize with the sensationalist propaganda doesn't change what it is.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering The economics behind getting bits to travel across the Internet is somewhat murky. We pay our ISP (say MV) to handle our bits. MV in turn pays someone else (PAETEK?) to handle the non-local bits that need to traverse the Internet. At some point ISP's simply trade bits (peer) without charging each other. So UUNET and LEVEL3 (I think) simply exchange bits without exchanging any money. As I understand it, the big telco's are looking to leverage their dominance to end or at least modify peering arrangements. They want to force other ISPs to pay for bit delivery. I think the savetheinternet.com site fails to suggest a rational way to structure peering. The current structure may be inadequate. The Telco bill in congress is heading the wrong way. I am not sure of the right way. http://renesys.com/ is a NH firm that monitors the net. Someone there might have some insight. -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 12:58 -0400, Python wrote: http://renesys.com/ is a NH firm that monitors the net. Someone there might have some insight. I poked around Todd Underwood's blog a little bit. He does not address net neutrality. http://www.renesys.com/blog/2006/03/a_tale_of_four_carriers_att_ve.shtml This is about Internet mergers. Now I know where BBN disappeared. -- Lloyd Kvam Venix Corp ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
RE: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
Well said Ben. Glenn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Scott Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:42 AM To: GNHLUG Subject: Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network? On 5/9/06, Greg Rundlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The information super highway must not be made into a censored toll-lane. I'm gonna dust off my There is no Internet mini-essay for this: -- There is this myth that the Internet exists as a single, cohesive network. It does not, and never has. The Internet is a network of networks. What that means is that a bunch of independent network operators have agreed to exchange traffic with each other because it benefits them. When you dial in to your ISP of choice (or plug in your Ethernet cable or whatever), you're not connecting to the Internet. You're connecting to your ISP. Your ISP probably connects to their ISP. Their ISP (if you're lucky) connects to several other ISPs, who connect to other ISPs, and so on. All these independent network operators form the Internet. To put this in more immediate terms: If I am your ISP, you are not connecting to the Internet. You are connecting to *my* network. You and I might have an agreement that in exchange for a monthly fee, I'll pass on your packets to someone else, but you're still using *my* network. If you don't like what I do with your packets, you're free to stop using my network, but you don't get to tell me how to run my network. So, the Internet exists as an abstract concept (and a useful one), but not as something you can touch. Not even as something you can route traffic through. All you can do is connect to some other guy's network and hope for the best. The idea that the Internet is this utopian cyberspace where everybody is equal is a myth, and always has been. -- I say this not because I think the big telcos should be allowed to do this, but because this the free Internet thing needs a reality check. -- Ben There is no Internet Scott ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/10/06, Randy Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, now you've done gone and provoked a rant out of me. :-) *Excellent*. ;-) First, the idea of regulating the ISPs is an obvious smear. Excuse me? How is that an obvious smear? What regulation are we talking about? Well, laws about how things have to be done are usually called that. Do you need me to define the word regulation for you? (Now *that's* an obvious smear. ;-) ) We're talking about telling ISPs to keep a flat-rate business model for their core Internet access ... When laws start telling businesses what prices they can charge, I view that as regulation, and fairly significant at that. Sometimes it's needed, but in my book, that solution is a last resort. Your opinion is apparently different from mine. Why, exactly, should ISPs be required to charge a flat rate? If I use more electricity, I pay more on my bill. If I drive a gas guzzling car, I pay for more gas. If I eat more food, I pay for it. If I print more pamphlets, or send more letters, or make more phone calls, I pay correspondingly more. For just about everything in the world, the more you use, the more you pay. Indeed, this isn't so much a law of the US as a law of nature. Why is data transfer different from the rest of the universe? ... and not to censor their customers. Provide a citation or reference for that claim, please. ... we're talking about an increasingly critical economic infrastructure here. Granted, but irrelevant to the question of innovation. Also irrelevant to the question of pricing (see mail, phone, electricity, et. al.). Gov't can -- and often does -- do wildly innovative things. Granted, but irrelevant to the question of how regulation stifles innovation. All your nifty examples of how government projects can be good are nice, but again, irrelevant to the question of stifling innovation. I'm not objecting on grounds that it's da gov'mint, but that regulation can easily become a stumbling block. This is true whether the regulations come from the legislature, or from a private industry group, or even from within an organization. A regulation -- a law, a rule, whatever you call it -- is a restriction. Regulations say one cannot do certain things, or that one must do things a certain way. Sometimes -- I'd say frequently, but it's impossible to measure -- new ideas will come into conflict with old regulations. You already saw my QoS example. I think it's a pretty good one. All packets are equal would have made perfect sense circa 1998, but it would have made QoS for VoIP illegal. How about a law saying core ISPs cannot block traffic? Sounds good, right? What about DDoS'es? When SQL Slammer hit, ISPs everywhere blocked port 1434 and got the Internet back up and running quickly. Oops, we made that illegal. Sorry! There are times where restrictions are needed. Thou shalt not kill seems to be a popular one. But I honestly believe we're all better off if we can get by without them. Regulation by definition does not thwart innovation and stifle business -- only bad regulation does that. Sure. It's predicting the bad that makes things difficult. If it were so easy to tell the bad from the good, I suspect we'd be living in a different world. -- Ben Limits Scott ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
On 5/10/06, Python [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At some point ISP's simply trade bits (peer) without charging each other. Right. Peering is a simple, equal trade. Big ISPs need to interconnect with each other. They could pay each other equal amounts of money, but that would be dumb. They pay in bits. If either side decides it isn't mutually beneficial, they can end the agreement. As I understand it, the big telco's are looking to leverage their dominance to end or at least modify peering arrangements. They want to force other ISPs to pay for bit delivery. Could you provide a reference? Not that I don't believe it -- that sounds *exactly* what a big telco would try to do -- but I want to get the story from the horse's mouth, so to speak. In particular, if, say, Comcast went to Level 3 and said, Start paying us or we'll depeer, Level 3 could just as easily say, Fine, and all your customers won't be able to get to the websites and warez and porn they pay you for. It seems like it would self-correct, and fairly quickly. The Telco bill in congress is heading the wrong way. Anyone got links to actual legislation, existing FCC/FTC rules, bills, proposed bills, etc? That is what I'm most interested in, and also haven't been able to find. *Tons* of rhetoric and articles making vague claims, but all of it is just as unsubstantiated as my original essay in this forum was. I found one link, from Slashdot, to http://www.benton.org/benton_files/barton+bill.pdf, but that doesn't seem to have anything to do with this supposed Network Neutrality issue. It's about cable operators, sure, but I didn't find anything about competition or pricing, other than something about government agencies not granting preference to one provider over another in their own dealings. Did I miss something? You can twist perceptions / Reality won't budge -- Rush, Show Me Don't Tell Me -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Net Neutrality. What good is a free operating system without a network?
Google and Microsoft agree. Both are members of the SaveTheInternet.com coalition. The information super highway must not be made into a censored toll-lane. Every 'Net user needs to act, or be relegated to back roads. Please do something to preserve equal access to the Internet. I just wrote a letter to my local newspaper, and the site makes it a snap.http://www.savetheinternet.com/=act Greg Rundlettrundlett.com
