Friday, July 25, 2008
The metaphor doesn't hold water
I keep considering the concept of a stupid network versus an intelligent one. Maybe I can have another educated look. The analogy (not great) likening an operating IP network to dumb plumbing pipes doesn't really hold water - if you'll excuse the pun.
Internet access cannot be stupid any more than our water supply or power supply can be stupid. Think back to the blackout of a few summers ago and you understand the importance for network management of all utilities.
In its
final comments, CAIP wrote:
CAIP tries to extend a postal metaphor as well, which the press picked-up on:
If CAIP members want a dedicated physical channel to their customers, then they can pay for that. But it is more expensive. If they want to enjoy the discounted price associated with logical channels, then the ISPs have to understand that, just like with postal services, you don't get overnight delivery of all packages all the time when you pay for parcel post.
I think that Canadians want our ISPs to manage their networks. Specifically, we want our ISPs to take action on certain types of content. For example, we expect all network operators to act to defend themselves and their customers from denial of service attacks. We want them to implement spam guards. We want them (some argue that we legally compel them) to block known child abuse images, content and website.
These are three examples that clearly contradict the 'dumb plumbing' view of the internet.
We want our water cleaned up; we want fluoride. We want the water company to manage supply. During certain periods, we see limits on certain applications like watering our lawns, washing our cars. The ban on watering is application specific, but it is non-discriminatory; it applies to all. It recognizes the difference between real time requirements for water (drinking, flushing, hygiene, etc.) and more discretionary uses. Sound familiar?
The dumb pipe plumbing metaphor doesn't work, because you have to consider that consumers don't want their water delivered without filtering as well. Sure, we could all be responsible for treating the water at our premises, but that isn't how the system works.
It is time to move on to a new metaphor. If you want to provide dumb pipes, then you should be prepared to build your own water company.
Technorati Tags:
CAIP, net neutrality
Internet access cannot be stupid any more than our water supply or power supply can be stupid. Think back to the blackout of a few summers ago and you understand the importance for network management of all utilities.
In its
final comments, CAIP wrote: Bell’s modifications of GAS service clearly breach the section 36 prohibition on a carrier “controlling the content” or “influencing the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carrier by it for the public” absent Commission approval of same. At the most basic level, Bell violates the common carrier principle by inspecting and throttling back traffic that it is supposed to transmit from point A to point B at defined speeds in a completely “opaque” fashion.I don't believe that there is any violation. The operative phrase that is in CAIP's own words: "absent Commission approval of same." The CRTC has correctly approved Bell's Terms of Service (and CAIP's members signed contracts accepting these terms) which provide for taking steps to manage the integrity of the Bell network.
CAIP tries to extend a postal metaphor as well, which the press picked-up on:
postal service customers have the freedom to decide for themselves the urgency of their packages, and to pay the postal service a fee based on how quickly they want their packages delivered.Except that CAIP's members nor customers aren't paying differential pricing based on the packages (applications) they are using. They want "before 10 am" next-day delivery of all their mail, despite paying a single price for all the mail they can stuff into the mailbox at the corner - a mailbox they share with the whole neighbourhood.
If CAIP members want a dedicated physical channel to their customers, then they can pay for that. But it is more expensive. If they want to enjoy the discounted price associated with logical channels, then the ISPs have to understand that, just like with postal services, you don't get overnight delivery of all packages all the time when you pay for parcel post.
I think that Canadians want our ISPs to manage their networks. Specifically, we want our ISPs to take action on certain types of content. For example, we expect all network operators to act to defend themselves and their customers from denial of service attacks. We want them to implement spam guards. We want them (some argue that we legally compel them) to block known child abuse images, content and website.
These are three examples that clearly contradict the 'dumb plumbing' view of the internet.
We want our water cleaned up; we want fluoride. We want the water company to manage supply. During certain periods, we see limits on certain applications like watering our lawns, washing our cars. The ban on watering is application specific, but it is non-discriminatory; it applies to all. It recognizes the difference between real time requirements for water (drinking, flushing, hygiene, etc.) and more discretionary uses. Sound familiar?
The dumb pipe plumbing metaphor doesn't work, because you have to consider that consumers don't want their water delivered without filtering as well. Sure, we could all be responsible for treating the water at our premises, but that isn't how the system works.
It is time to move on to a new metaphor. If you want to provide dumb pipes, then you should be prepared to build your own water company.
Technorati Tags:
CAIP, net neutrality
Posted by Mark Goldberg @ 7/25/2008 06:45:00 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
If we want to carry the metaphor forward and assume that ISP's be allowed to manage their networks just as the water and electric providers do, can we then assume that ISP's are going to fall under the same regulatory oversite programs?
I look forward to Rogers first meeting with the Ontario Data Board.
"Tell us again, Ted, why a rate increase is required?"
"No, enhanced profits to fund the purchase of an NFL franchise is not in the public interest."
I look forward to Rogers first meeting with the Ontario Data Board.
"Tell us again, Ted, why a rate increase is required?"
"No, enhanced profits to fund the purchase of an NFL franchise is not in the public interest."
Posted by 
: 8:33 AM, July 25, 2008
: 8:33 AM, July 25, 2008
Bell needs to be stopped, plain and simple - pipe or no pipes.
CAIP's submission was excellent and full of facts versus Bell's lovely copy and paste job.
CAIP's submission was excellent and full of facts versus Bell's lovely copy and paste job.
Posted by : 10:22 AM, July 25, 2008
: 10:22 AM, July 25, 2008
"I think that Canadians want our ISPs to manage their networks. Specifically, we want our ISPs to take action on certain types of content."
I don't think so Tim.
What you are doiing here is grouping spam and someone preference to download or use BT.
These are not the same, doesn't matter how you "spin" and spew it.
I don't think so Tim.
What you are doiing here is grouping spam and someone preference to download or use BT.
These are not the same, doesn't matter how you "spin" and spew it.
Posted by : 1:18 PM, July 25, 2008
: 1:18 PM, July 25, 2008
All metaphors eventually break down at some level of analysis. They are, by definition, an oversimplification of the situation.
CAIP's final comments don't deny the possible need for throttling. They explicitly acknowledge this need in 121.a. Their beef is that Bell should not be discriminating between P2P and non-P2P data transfers. If there really is congestion, what business is it of Bell's which traffic is 'important' and what isn't?
There is also a huge difference between a customer opting to pay extra to have data delivered with higher priority (postal example) and Bell determining for you that your data isn't really all that important, and can be dropped or slowed down.
If there is a market need for real QoS for VoIP and other activities, there will be a market solution for it. Bell just doesn't like the idea that other ISPs can provide a product that is different/better than their own, while still using Bell's GAS.
All this says nothing about the collateral damage to VPN, VoIP, and SSH traffic that is crippled by Bell's throttling activities.
CAIP's final comments don't deny the possible need for throttling. They explicitly acknowledge this need in 121.a. Their beef is that Bell should not be discriminating between P2P and non-P2P data transfers. If there really is congestion, what business is it of Bell's which traffic is 'important' and what isn't?
There is also a huge difference between a customer opting to pay extra to have data delivered with higher priority (postal example) and Bell determining for you that your data isn't really all that important, and can be dropped or slowed down.
If there is a market need for real QoS for VoIP and other activities, there will be a market solution for it. Bell just doesn't like the idea that other ISPs can provide a product that is different/better than their own, while still using Bell's GAS.
All this says nothing about the collateral damage to VPN, VoIP, and SSH traffic that is crippled by Bell's throttling activities.
Posted by : 5:48 PM, July 25, 2008
: 5:48 PM, July 25, 2008
Although I respectfully disagree with your parsing of CAIP's s.36 argument, I would also point out that you (and the CBC) missed the more important element of it. By imposing its own notion of what constitutes "low priority" or "bulk" data, Bell is affecting the meaning and purpose of communications on its network, in direct contravention to s.36, without the permission of the CRTC.
Any metaphor that imagines water or electricity as similar to data misses the point altogether, which is that the Telecom Act is there to protect the public interest in the democratic availability of communications networks. When an oligopolistic network owner can take your high-priority communications and secretly and unilaterally impose a lower priority on them FOR ITS OWN SELF-SERVING REASONS, it violates both the spirit and the letter of the Telecom Act. None of this precludes Bell from applying to the CRTC for changes to the tariff that help redistribute the cost of network provision more equitably among heavy users. But the onus is on Bell to show, unequivocally, that this is necessary.
By the way, by placing child porn into this discussion as an implicit rationale for Bell's discriminatory throttling of P2P and other data, you are engaging in the worst kind of false justification. Regulation of harmful content according to statute has nothing in common with what Bell did. Why do you think they did it secretly?
Post a Comment
Any metaphor that imagines water or electricity as similar to data misses the point altogether, which is that the Telecom Act is there to protect the public interest in the democratic availability of communications networks. When an oligopolistic network owner can take your high-priority communications and secretly and unilaterally impose a lower priority on them FOR ITS OWN SELF-SERVING REASONS, it violates both the spirit and the letter of the Telecom Act. None of this precludes Bell from applying to the CRTC for changes to the tariff that help redistribute the cost of network provision more equitably among heavy users. But the onus is on Bell to show, unequivocally, that this is necessary.
By the way, by placing child porn into this discussion as an implicit rationale for Bell's discriminatory throttling of P2P and other data, you are engaging in the worst kind of false justification. Regulation of harmful content according to statute has nothing in common with what Bell did. Why do you think they did it secretly?
Posted by : 9:31 AM, July 26, 2008
: 9:31 AM, July 26, 2008 << Home
Syndicate
