thank you Vint.folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage. This stuff gets very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my tongue by any means. Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3 weeks ago.Please note also Vint's remark:If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.I have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself dangerous i know. BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us want. For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all will oppose this loud and clear. =The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscriptioninfo: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic & Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml= Begin forwarded message:From: "Vint Cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: November 11, 2005 10:10:40 AM ESTTo: "'economics of ip networks'"Subject: Re:Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality billReply-To: economics of ip networks Gordon, today, you are typically charged based on the maximum capacity of the access circuit you "purchase" - that's flat rate. At the time (8 years ago) people wanted to have the burst rate but didn't want to pay for the unused capacity so we instituted a tiered pricing system that allowed them, e.g., to burst at 45 Mb/s but only pay for the effectively used capacity. As I recall, we used something like the 95th percentile as a measurement of capacity used - in other words, you paid for that capacity below which 95% of all sampled rates fell. I don't recall all the details but there may have been a fixed/variable structure. A fixed amount for having access to burst capacity of a certain size and a variable amount depending on average rate. the implication is that if you purchased a burst T1 and used half on the average you might pay less than if you purchased burst T3 and used only a half T1's worth. The somewhat higher charge would be a consequence of having access to a higher absolute rate/capacity. This idea may still have legs today although as speeds increase, and prices fall, it may not be nearly the same issue as it was eight years ago. You might ask MCI and other ISPs what their pricing structures are today for some perspective. I do not see that tiered pricing is a neutrality threat. Neutrality has to do with differentiation with regard to the actual content carried (or service provided). If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of network neutrality. One might think of the notion of neutrality as the 21st C version of common carriage although I hesitate to draw the comparison if only because of the complex way in which "common carriage" concept and rules have evolved. vint Vinton G Cerf Chief Internet Evangelist Google/Regus Herndon, VA 20171 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.google.com From: On Behalf Of Gordon CookSent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:40 AMTo: economics of ip networksSubject: Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill Any comments? Any comments from anyone? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill] Date: November 11, 2005 12:58:40 AM EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: oops ;) my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X speed, it was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long bandwidth but price alone. In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI. http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml Although MCI has not yet made a formal announcement via a press release, Cerf explained that "we are plainly discussing this with you, Gordon, and your readers." The MCI move is the outcome of what Cerf describes as a crunch between the Internet's flat rate pricing model and usage patterns where both the amount of use and disparity between use by applications has increased dramatically. Will consumers prefer to pay higher flat rate charges for everything, or prefer different pricing models when they access applications which require dramatically different service levels to include the cost as part of an application specific fee?Begin forwarded message: From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: November 11, 2005 9:11:17 AM ES
