Comments on: Harper on “Network Neutering” http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: CZ http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/comment-page-1/#comment-36827 CZ Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:20:41 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/#comment-36827 <p>Tim, I will be checking out this book very soon for myself. In the mean time, thought you and your readers might want to see what we've posted over at Verizon's policy blog. Not about at&t but on IP pioneers and thought leaders weighing in on NN. CZ</p> <p>http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/Blogs/PoliBlog/LinkHoewing9/203/Voices-Mount-Against-Net-Neutrality-Regulation.aspx</p> Tim, I will be checking out this book very soon for myself. In the mean time, thought you and your readers might want to see what we’ve posted over at Verizon’s policy blog. Not about at&t but on IP pioneers and thought leaders weighing in on NN. CZ

http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/Blogs/PoliBlog/LinkHoewing9/203/Voices-Mount-Against-Net-Neutrality-Regulation.aspx

]]> By: CZ http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/comment-page-1/#comment-52372 CZ Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:20:41 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/#comment-52372 <p>Tim, I will be checking out this book very soon for myself. In the mean time, thought you and your readers might want to see what we've posted over at Verizon's policy blog. Not about at&t; but on IP pioneers and thought leaders weighing in on NN. CZ<br><br><a href="http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/Blogs/PoliBlog/LinkHoewing9/203/Voices-Mount-Against-Net-Neutrality-Regulation.aspx">http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/Blogs/Poli...</a></p> Tim, I will be checking out this book very soon for myself. In the mean time, thought you and your readers might want to see what we’ve posted over at Verizon’s policy blog. Not about at&t; but on IP pioneers and thought leaders weighing in on NN. CZ

http://poliblog.verizon.com/PoliBlog/Blogs/Poli…

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/comment-page-1/#comment-36826 Richard Bennett Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:03:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/#comment-36826 <p>I was disappointed by Harper's description of net neutrality:</p> <p><i>Proponents of network neutrality regulation would rather not let Internet service providers hold their facilities separate from the rest of the community and use them any way they please. Doing so could allow isps to deny equal treatment to certain destinations on the Internet or to disfavor applications that they do not control or get special payment from.</i></p> <p>There's a technical dimension to this debate that both the free-marketeers and the communists fail to appreciate, to wit: it's actually impossible to build a neutral network as long as it has to handle applications with different needs.</p> <p>If you do what the neuts want, you have to treat every packet the same as every other packet, and that works better for some applications than for others; it's not neutral at all, it's simply systemic bias.</p> <p>So Verizon and AT&T want to treat packets not according to the network's abilities but according to application needs (Lenin would like that). They know enough about networking to realize that VoIP, live video streaming, and on-line gaming need different services from the network than e-mail or web browsing. That's a technically sound position.</p> <p>Where it gets tricky is on the payment for extra-special packet handling. The other set of neuts says that application discrimination is fine but there can be no payment for it, and the pro-diversity crowd says there will be no new network without such payment.</p> <p>So the neuts may think they're fighting for equal treatment, in fact they're arguing for special treatment of the applications that need it for no charge. If you can't prioritize packets and you can't prioritize service levels, you have to move everything at the highest level of service anyone needs. If you do that you're back to the technical structure of the telephone network and you've lost the benefits of packet-switching.</p> <p>No broadband provider has ever built a business on denying access to content, so that part of the neut argument is simply ridiculous.</p> <p>The rest of it rests on a misunderstanding of the limits and benefits of high-priority packet delivery for certain applications.</p> I was disappointed by Harper’s description of net neutrality:

Proponents of network neutrality regulation would rather not let Internet service providers hold their facilities separate from the rest of the community and use them any way they please. Doing so could allow isps to deny equal treatment to certain destinations on the Internet or to disfavor applications that they do not control or get special payment from.

There’s a technical dimension to this debate that both the free-marketeers and the communists fail to appreciate, to wit: it’s actually impossible to build a neutral network as long as it has to handle applications with different needs.

If you do what the neuts want, you have to treat every packet the same as every other packet, and that works better for some applications than for others; it’s not neutral at all, it’s simply systemic bias.

So Verizon and AT&T want to treat packets not according to the network’s abilities but according to application needs (Lenin would like that). They know enough about networking to realize that VoIP, live video streaming, and on-line gaming need different services from the network than e-mail or web browsing. That’s a technically sound position.

Where it gets tricky is on the payment for extra-special packet handling. The other set of neuts says that application discrimination is fine but there can be no payment for it, and the pro-diversity crowd says there will be no new network without such payment.

So the neuts may think they’re fighting for equal treatment, in fact they’re arguing for special treatment of the applications that need it for no charge. If you can’t prioritize packets and you can’t prioritize service levels, you have to move everything at the highest level of service anyone needs. If you do that you’re back to the technical structure of the telephone network and you’ve lost the benefits of packet-switching.

No broadband provider has ever built a business on denying access to content, so that part of the neut argument is simply ridiculous.

The rest of it rests on a misunderstanding of the limits and benefits of high-priority packet delivery for certain applications.

]]> By: Richard Bennett http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/comment-page-1/#comment-52371 Richard Bennett Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:03:08 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/01/19/harper-on-network-neutering/#comment-52371 <p>I was disappointed by Harper's description of net neutrality:<br><br><i>Proponents of network neutrality regulation would rather not let Internet service providers hold their facilities separate from the rest of the community and use them any way they please. Doing so could allow isps to deny equal treatment to certain destinations on the Internet or to disfavor applications that they do not control or get special payment from.</i><br><br>There's a technical dimension to this debate that both the free-marketeers and the communists fail to appreciate, to wit: it's actually impossible to build a neutral network as long as it has to handle applications with different needs.<br><br>If you do what the neuts want, you have to treat every packet the same as every other packet, and that works better for some applications than for others; it's not neutral at all, it's simply systemic bias.<br><br>So Verizon and AT&T; want to treat packets not according to the network's abilities but according to application needs (Lenin would like that). They know enough about networking to realize that VoIP, live video streaming, and on-line gaming need different services from the network than e-mail or web browsing. That's a technically sound position.<br><br>Where it gets tricky is on the payment for extra-special packet handling. The other set of neuts says that application discrimination is fine but there can be no payment for it, and the pro-diversity crowd says there will be no new network without such payment.<br><br>So the neuts may think they're fighting for equal treatment, in fact they're arguing for special treatment of the applications that need it for no charge. If you can't prioritize packets and you can't prioritize service levels, you have to move everything at the highest level of service anyone needs. If you do that you're back to the technical structure of the telephone network and you've lost the benefits of packet-switching.<br><br>No broadband provider has ever built a business on denying access to content, so that part of the neut argument is simply ridiculous.<br><br>The rest of it rests on a misunderstanding of the limits and benefits of high-priority packet delivery for certain applications.</p> I was disappointed by Harper’s description of net neutrality:

Proponents of network neutrality regulation would rather not let Internet service providers hold their facilities separate from the rest of the community and use them any way they please. Doing so could allow isps to deny equal treatment to certain destinations on the Internet or to disfavor applications that they do not control or get special payment from.

There’s a technical dimension to this debate that both the free-marketeers and the communists fail to appreciate, to wit: it’s actually impossible to build a neutral network as long as it has to handle applications with different needs.

If you do what the neuts want, you have to treat every packet the same as every other packet, and that works better for some applications than for others; it’s not neutral at all, it’s simply systemic bias.

So Verizon and AT&T; want to treat packets not according to the network’s abilities but according to application needs (Lenin would like that). They know enough about networking to realize that VoIP, live video streaming, and on-line gaming need different services from the network than e-mail or web browsing. That’s a technically sound position.

Where it gets tricky is on the payment for extra-special packet handling. The other set of neuts says that application discrimination is fine but there can be no payment for it, and the pro-diversity crowd says there will be no new network without such payment.

So the neuts may think they’re fighting for equal treatment, in fact they’re arguing for special treatment of the applications that need it for no charge. If you can’t prioritize packets and you can’t prioritize service levels, you have to move everything at the highest level of service anyone needs. If you do that you’re back to the technical structure of the telephone network and you’ve lost the benefits of packet-switching.

No broadband provider has ever built a business on denying access to content, so that part of the neut argument is simply ridiculous.

The rest of it rests on a misunderstanding of the limits and benefits of high-priority packet delivery for certain applications.

]]>