[AusNOG] [Internet Australia - members] Net neutrality

[Paul Wilkins]

Mark,
I think where we disagree, is where the "net neutrality" argument applies.
In my opinion, what's being discussed in the political sphere, is where
consolidation of transit by large content providers, results in their
content being treated preferentially. This means smaller operators being
discriminated against, and will lead to diminishing diversity, both of
content and competition in the supply of content and services.

This process will continue if only market mechanisms apply, so the debate
being had, not just in Australia but around the world, is if the internet
should be "net neutral", where no provider receives preferential treatment,
or if not, what mechanisms may be allowed, and which disallowed, in
differential treatment of traffic. It's a question that will fundamentally
shape the future course of the internet, going forward. The ramifcations
are both economic and political, so the debate, perhaps seeming to be at
cross purposes, is naturally occurring in both business and political
spheres.

In this context, raising issues of DOS and security, is me taking a forward
looking view. How this debate pans out will determine the shape of the
internet 30 years from now. The point being, if we admit there are cases
for the differential treatment of traffic, it fundamentally changes the net
neutrality debate. Currently the debate is whether all traffic should be
treated equally. I'm suggesting that inevitably there are different classes
of traffic requiring different treatment, so the net neutrality debate
becomes not whether we treat different traffic classes differently, but how
granular the different treatments should be allowed to be.

Also, in my previous post, for video transfer via UDP, read interactive
video. Bulk transfer of movies we agree is predominantly TCP.

Kind regards

Paul Wilkins


On 24 November 2015 at 20:04, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:

>
> There is rather a lot of somewhat questionable nonsense here. I almost
> feel cruel to pick it apart.
>
> Almost.
>
> On 24 Nov 2015, at 4:46 PM, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  - A CDN represents a considerable private investment in infrastructure.
> The benefits are passed to the customer at no cost to them. Smaller players
> may not like it, but it will happen, because the big players want it to
> happen, and there's a clear benefit to the majority of customers. The best
> argument against CDNs is that giving something away for free amounts to an
> antitrust action. Good luck with that.
>
>
> I’m yet to find a “small player” who doesn’t like CDNs.
>
> Small content providers have wholesale access to the likes of Akamai and
> Cloudflare, and their service offerings are so much better for it.
>
> Small access providers can bolt CDN nodes, paid for by their operators,
> into their networks to minimize their costs. Takeup in Australia of Akamai
> and GGC has been excellent.
>
> It’s all win-win.
>
> Which smaller players don’t like CDNs?
>
>
>  - QoS - net neutrality never answers the question, if you prioritise
> traffic, who pays?
>
>
> The anti-net-neutrality people have a fine answer to that question: “The
> people who want assured forwarding.” It’s hardly a mystery.
>
>
> And without funding, you'll never get QoS in the internet backbone.
>
>
> I don’t believe there is such a thing as an “internet backbone,” insomuch
> as there are several of them, operated by private concerns, in parallel.
>
> They already run QoS for various reasons disconnected from this
> discussion. Those who don’t like their QoS policies overbuild with their
> own networks so they can implement different QoS policies of their own,
> then we end up with *yet more* internet backbones.
>
>
> This is a huge impediment for voice and video.
>
>
> The single largest application on the internet today is streaming video,
> on a QoS’less internet, and it has enjoyed that status since well before
> Netflix came onto the scene. Seems to be doing okay. Spectacularly
> successful, one might say, given their “huge impediments."
>
>
>  - TCP vs UDP - TCP is social. It plays by the rules. UDP elbows its way
> through. There's no choice here. Eventually there will be different
> treatment within the backbone of TCP vs UDP. People will be willing to pay
> for uncongested UDP bandwidth, and people will be happy to route it, at a
> price.
>
>
> Why do people want to pay for uncongested UDP? If they want congestion
> control, aren’t they supposed to be using TCP in the first place?
>
>
>  - Content vs "services". If you provide a service, you get remunerated
> for that by the customer, and consequently, you're willing to pay for
> bandwidth as a business expense. So service providers would typically
> benefit from transit QoS.
>
>
> The operation of the internet today seems to reject that model, but okay,
> it’s perhaps possible.
>
>
> If you provide content, your business model is based around advertising,
> and there's no mechanism to pass charges to customers.
>
>
> Firstly: Netflix, a content provider who isn’t based around advertising,
> disagrees.
>
> Secondly: You’re confusing “users” with “customers.” If your business
> model is based on advertising, your “customers” are the advertisers, and
> you pass charges on to them by sending them bills. The service you are
> providing is one of eyeball-aggregation, bringing an audience to their
> advertisement. So in that sense, the “users” are your stock on the shelves,
> and it’s quite reasonable to expect that you’ll pay wholesale to acquire
> them.
>
> The cost of sending content to users is how you buy your stock; you sell
> that stock to your customers, who are your advertisers.
>
> That model does not appear to involve or invoke any network neutrality
> concepts, unless and until access providers start to interfere with your
> business by going out of their way to prevent you from acquiring stock.
>
>
> In fact your business relies on content being free.
>
>
> No, the content is very definitely not free — it’s paid for by those who
> are using it to advertise.
>
>
> If services traffic is prioritised over yours, it hurts your business.
> Either you accept that, fight for net neutrality, or you build a CDN.
>
>
> What is this “services” traffic of which you speak, why would it be
> prioritized over the content providers’ services, and why hasn’t the
> content provider already provisioned CDN capacity in the first place?
>
>
>  - DOS. In light of the persistence of DOS attacks, [ … ]
>
>  - Security. Currently, a disproportionate number of attacks emanate from
> [ … ]
>
>
> It’s well accepted that operational responses to security threats are
> beyond the scope of the network neutrality debate, and you’re being
> mischievous by including them here.
>
>
> Obviously longer term there is going to be a negotiation around charges
> for transit QoS that balances the needs of customers, service providers,
> content providers,
>
>
> Maybe, but none of them are going to cover the territory that you’ve
> covered in this email.
>
> The net neutrality debate is going to be fought over the access network,
> as a direct consequence of NBN’s CVC revenue model. The CVC charge creates
> a congestion point (which everyone agrees to call the “last mile,” even
> though it isn’t), and Ziggy knows it.
>
>
> To conclude, I doubt an argument against CDNs can be won.
>
>
> Who’s trying to make an argument against CDNs?
>
>
> I do think all TCP should be equal priority. But it should be possible to
> charge a premium for UDP transit (which won't be CDN traffic).
>
>
> Who’d want to buy?
>
>   - mark
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20151124/a70aad4c/attachment-0001.html>