Did you miss the final paragraphcs of the Tim Berners-Lee piece you linked to:
The Internet is increasingly becoming the dominant medium binding us. The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true.
Let us protect the neutrality of the net.
Have you changed your position on net neutrality?
Richard Bennett
· 3 years ago
I had a long discussion with Tim on his blog about the issue, and we both agree that there's nothing wrong with voice-grade QoS for an extra fee.
My position on net neutrality is very simple: it's a fiction.
Read the comments on Tim's blog for the reasoning.
Liozzi
· 3 years ago
You quote a source to whom you said: "You make a number of claims that are either misleading or simply wrong, so I'd like to point some of them out and show you where your analysis of the "neutrality" concept breaks down."
But that isn't what Shaw is offering. They're offering QoS for voice services for an extra fee, unless its their own "digital phone" service, for which the QoS is free.
Perhaps you're missing this crucial element. Could it be what makes you think SaveTheInternet is trying to "spin" this story. Its addressed in the Snowe bill here (of course it wouldn't apply to Shaw as a Canadian company):
SEC. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF NETWORK OPERATORS. 9 (a) IN GENERAL.A network operator shall (1) not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify, impair, or change any bits, content, application or service transmitted over the network of such operator; (2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any other person, including any affiliate or company with which such operator has a business relationship in (A) allocating bandwidth; and (B) transmitting content or applications or services to or from a subscriber in the provision of a communications; (3) not assess a charge to any application or service provider not on the network of such operator the delivery of traffic to any subscriber to the network of such operator;
Richard Bennett
· 3 years ago
You've got the facts wrong, again. Shaw's own phone service is in a different frequency band than their Internet access; it uses an isochronous protocol that's QoS by definition.
The VoIP upgrade is a legitimate service option, of the kind that rational people judge legitimate.
I oppose Snowe's bill.
PBCliberal
· 3 years ago
The Snowe bill defines communications as:
(4) COMMUNICATIONS.The term communications (A) means any voice, video, or data application or service, regardless of the facilities or technology used, that
So, my read is that they would be required to either offer QoS for free to VoIP competitors, or institute a similar charge for their digital phone service if it were offered bundled with TCP/IP with an internet gateway.
Can we tone down the namecalling? This is a serious issue and it deserves respectful discussion.
Richard Bennett
· 3 years ago
Yes, I think your reading of Snowe-Dorgan is correct, and that's why I oppose it. I have no problem with an ISP selling QoS for a fee, whether they have a competing service or not.
QoS is a legitimate service upgrade, and Shaw's phone service doesn't interfere with anybody's web surfing.
BTW, I have no credibilty. I agree with Tim on some points and disagree on others, so that makes me a bad person.
Be advised.
George Ou
· 3 years ago
Having phone service with your ISP is by definition advantageous. The IP portion of the call has minimum hop count. If they choose to bundle the voice service over the same frequency or not, that is their choice and a function of scale. So long as they're not degrading the competitors to less than normal, what's the problem? It works just the same as before no better no worse. If you're going to an Internet based provider, your VoIP packets have to go outside of your ISP's network and I'm not sure if they can provide QoS anyways. Truth of the matter is, you could probably just get away with implementing QoS for outbound VoIP traffic on your own router/gateway. That's where most of the problems occur since outbound throughput stinks on most broadband pipes. Your own gateway is the biggest choke point and you get to control outbound priority leaving your house which is the most important thing to do anyways.
Jason Lee Miller
· 3 years ago
It's a good idea to be certain you're sourcing the correct person. The article you've cited that illustrates my "reputation for sensationalism" isn't one of mine. The picture on the column should tip you off.
Actually, some say I'm not as handsome as my picture. Guess that makes me a liar of some kind.
Unfortunately, my parents weren't as original as they thought they were. Turns out the name "Jason" was extremely popular in the seventies and "Miller," well, I might as well be named Smith or Jones. That's why I go by my full name, to avoid confusion.
Seems I've rubbed you the wrong way. But there's no need for condescention and name-calling, especially when you're not sure which name to use.
max
· 3 years ago
Having phone service with your ISP is by definition advantageous. The IP portion of the call has minimum hop count. If they choose to bundle the voice service over the same frequency or not, that is their choice and a function of scale. So long as theyre not degrading the competitors to less than normal, whats the problem? It works just the same as before no better no worse. If youre going to an Internet based provider, your VoIP packets have to go outside of your ISPs network and Im not sure if they can provide QoS anyways.
QoS is almost always seen in regards to Intranet (or On net ISP) traffic. Internet QoS mechanisms, and generally anything RSVP have some scalability hurdles to overcome before it will function correctly on the Internet.
So you have obvious technical issues, and that doesn't even count the managment issues involved in inter provider QoS.
Dave Siegel
· 3 years ago
I applaud Shaw cable for creating a service offering that gives their voice/voip competitors the ability to have a properly performing service on their network. I'm not exactly sure how they do it efficiently, since identifying the packets from all those third party providers might be a man-power intenstive activity.
I can only imagine that there must be more competition in the broadband market in that particular area of Canada, and they have found a way that they can differentiate their broadband service from their competitors. They will have to differentiate their VoIP service from third party VoIP carriers as well; it will have to compete on its own merits. This is a good thing as well.
Dave Siegel
· 3 years ago
Sorry Max, but RSVP has nothing to do with QoS. You're thinking of MPLS, not QoS.
Interprovider QoS is possible to do today with relatively trivial translation tables applied to the network borders between carriers. Assuming that all major carriers supported QoS on the equipment that runs their Internet service (some of the older routers or linecards require upgrades), it would be a simple matter of turning it on from a technical perspective. There are no scaling concerns because there are no signalling aspects. The routers simply place packets into a queue based on the ToS bit value in the IP header.
It's not enabled today because there is no business reason to turn it on. If more broadband companies go the route of Shaw Cable, that situation might change though.
max
· 3 years ago
Sorry Max, but RSVP has nothing to do with QoS. Youre thinking of MPLS, not QoS.
Really? That's not what the RFC's 2205 - 2210 etc. say. And do remember that Diffserv evolved from Intserv and that the components of each can be used together to provide End to End QoS.
Diffserv doesn't provide End to End Qos, it only provides per hop scheduling. It wasn't designed to provide the sort of End to End Qos necessary for guaranteed delivery., It's more a bandaid for congested links. You still need signalling for that.
End to End QoS only exists "On net", today. You're lying if you say otherwise.
nterprovider QoS is possible to do today with relatively trivial translation tables applied to the network borders between carriers. Assuming that all major carriers supported QoS on the equipment that runs their Internet service (some of the older routers or linecards require upgrades), it would be a simple matter of turning it on from a technical perspective.
You obviously don't have a lot of experience with Internet Exchanges or peering based on that statement. It's not as simple as you think. At this level, packet queuing doesn't give you much of a benefit compared to Routing Policy, which all carriers would need to agree on anyway, and usually that costs $ unless you're tier one.
Its not enabled today because there is no business reason to turn it on. If more broadband companies go the route of Shaw Cable, that situation might change though.
It is enabled today for business reasons, it's just hard to sell QoS without guarantees, and that's only possible on net or if signalling protocols can reserve resources through the network.
Regards, Max
max
· 3 years ago
David,
MPLS use RSVP-TE. RSVP can be used with any number of QoS mechanisms, including Diffserv.
Here's an example of RSVP and Diffserv playing nice together, w/ No MPLS:)
The current AS and exchange infastructure: mostly ain't broke and don't need fixing Legislated monopolies held by last-mile providers: badly need to be replaced with legislated access (as seen in local telco "deregulation") or complemented with a neutrality law specifically for them
And by the by, I'll be really sad to see Shaw lose a case over a product that's 100% vapourous.
Richard Bennett
· 3 years ago
Unbundling didn't work, we don't need to try that again, and the Shaw service works well by all accounts I've read.
Lots of things that "ain't broke" can stand some improvement. That's why have cell phones and electricity and stuff.
All Comments
Have you changed your position on net neutrality?
My position on net neutrality is very simple: it's a fiction.
Read the comments on Tim's blog for the reasoning.
"You make a number of claims that are either misleading or simply wrong, so I'd like to point some of them out and show you where your analysis of the "neutrality" concept breaks down."
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132#c...
You have no credibility at this point.
Perhaps you're missing this crucial element. Could it be what makes you think SaveTheInternet is trying to "spin" this story. Its addressed in the Snowe bill here (of course it wouldn't apply to Shaw as a Canadian company):
The VoIP upgrade is a legitimate service option, of the kind that rational people judge legitimate.
I oppose Snowe's bill.
So, my read is that they would be required to either offer QoS for free to VoIP competitors, or institute a similar charge for their digital phone service if it were offered bundled with TCP/IP with an internet gateway.
Can we tone down the namecalling? This is a serious issue and it deserves respectful discussion.
QoS is a legitimate service upgrade, and Shaw's phone service doesn't interfere with anybody's web surfing.
BTW, I have no credibilty. I agree with Tim on some points and disagree on others, so that makes me a bad person.
Be advised.
Here's what I look like:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-6...
Actually, some say I'm not as handsome as my picture. Guess that makes me a liar of some kind.
Unfortunately, my parents weren't as original as they thought they were. Turns out the name "Jason" was extremely popular in the seventies and "Miller," well, I might as well be named Smith or Jones. That's why I go by my full name, to avoid confusion.
Seems I've rubbed you the wrong way. But there's no need for condescention and name-calling, especially when you're not sure which name to use.
QoS is almost always seen in regards to Intranet (or On net ISP) traffic. Internet QoS mechanisms, and generally anything RSVP have some scalability hurdles to overcome before it will function correctly on the Internet.
So you have obvious technical issues, and that doesn't even count the managment issues involved in inter provider QoS.
I can only imagine that there must be more competition in the broadband market in that particular area of Canada, and they have found a way that they can differentiate their broadband service from their competitors. They will have to differentiate their VoIP service from third party VoIP carriers as well; it will have to compete on its own merits. This is a good thing as well.
Interprovider QoS is possible to do today with relatively trivial translation tables applied to the network borders between carriers. Assuming that all major carriers supported QoS on the equipment that runs their Internet service (some of the older routers or linecards require upgrades), it would be a simple matter of turning it on from a technical perspective. There are no scaling concerns because there are no signalling aspects. The routers simply place packets into a queue based on the ToS bit value in the IP header.
It's not enabled today because there is no business reason to turn it on. If more broadband companies go the route of Shaw Cable, that situation might change though.
Really? That's not what the RFC's 2205 - 2210 etc. say. And do remember that Diffserv evolved from Intserv and that the components of each can be used together to provide End to End QoS.
Diffserv doesn't provide End to End Qos, it only provides per hop scheduling. It wasn't designed to provide the sort of End to End Qos necessary for guaranteed delivery., It's more a bandaid for congested links. You still need signalling for that.
End to End QoS only exists "On net", today. You're lying if you say otherwise.
You obviously don't have a lot of experience with Internet Exchanges or peering based on that statement. It's not as simple as you think. At this level, packet queuing doesn't give you much of a benefit compared to Routing Policy, which all carriers would need to agree on anyway, and usually that costs $ unless you're tier one.
It is enabled today for business reasons, it's just hard to sell QoS without guarantees, and that's only possible on net or if signalling protocols can reserve resources through the network.
Regards,
Max
MPLS use RSVP-TE. RSVP can be used with any number of QoS mechanisms, including Diffserv.
Here's an example of RSVP and Diffserv playing nice together, w/ No MPLS:)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk766/tec...
Regards,
Max
Legislated monopolies held by last-mile providers: badly need to be replaced with legislated access (as seen in local telco "deregulation") or complemented with a neutrality law specifically for them
And by the by, I'll be really sad to see Shaw lose a case over a product that's 100% vapourous.
Lots of things that "ain't broke" can stand some improvement. That's why have cell phones and electricity and stuff.
It's called "progress".