[Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] Dave Täht quoted in the ACLU blog

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> A little out of context. I'd had a string of private convos with
> robert trying to explain how peering worked before he'd written the
> wired article, trying to get him to understand aqm and fair queuing
> also.
>
> As for the key misconception in the debate between level3, netflix, and isps...
>
>  What I basically had said was that "the service provider, netflix in
> this instance, had to pay someone to host their servers, cover the
> cost of electricity and the cost of a port on big fat ethernet switch,
> and it didn't matter if they paid a middleman like level3 for the
> connectivity, OR an ISP that hosted the box on their internal
> network."
>
> It happens to be most cost-effective, if you have enough traffic, to
> co-locate with the ISP. AND, in most cases, since that's cheaper to
> the ISP than a middleman, ISPs have traditionally offered rack space
> for free and the service provider covered the cost of the hardware,
> the ISP is already getting paid by the customer, and the requirements
> of the hardware and related capex and maintence costs by the service
> provider.
>
> Now, an argument can be made that the service provider  should also
> pay for the rack space and electricity to the ISP, the same as if they
> were co-located elsewhere and connected to a middleman, - and in *that
> case* some regulation in order to ensure a fair market seems
> necessary. (but it's also a hassle... and
>
> later on in this debate, gfiber published their policies for
> co-locating services like netflix in their datacenters, which made
> that point more clearly, and explicitly laid out their policies to the
> possible political detriment of the ISPs making the argument above.
>
>  http://googlefiberblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/minimizing-buffering.html
>
> Still, the points I made about congestion control, aqm and fair
> queuing weren't made with the ACLU and I suppose I should go over
> there to make those portions of my points, because the darn fast
> lane/slow lane analogy is seriously flawed in general. Internet
> traffic looks nothing like vehicular traffic.

I'd also (I think) made the point that I didn't like how all these services and
ISPS were becoming centralized, and if we wanted true neutrality, restrictive
rules by the ISPs regarding their customers hosting services of their own
had to go - and nobody's been making THAT point, which irks me significantly.

In an age where you have, say, gbit fiber to your business, it makes quite
a lot of sense from a security and maintenence perspective
to be hosting your own data and servers on your own darn premise, not
elsewhere.

I didn't make any points about competitiveness either; that was robert's piece.

For the record:

I oppose the time warner merger, and also oppose rules and regulations
that prevent municipalities from running their own fiber and allowing
providers to compete on top of it. In fact I strongly, strongly favor
the latter. I came very close to writing a letter to the FCC on that,
but didn't.

(I LIKED the world we had in the 90s with tens of thousands of ISPs competing
 on top of universally agreed upon link technologies. I ran one of those ISPs)

I am glad gfiber exists to put a scare into certain monopolists, but
even then I'd be tons happier if municipalities treated basic wired
connectivity as we do roads. One of the great "Secrets" of silicon
valley is it got wired for fiber early, through the vision and
foresight of people like Brian Reid and everybody got easy access.

Lastly, it is one of my hopes that one day wireless technologies would
become sufficiently robust to break the last wire monopolies once and
for all.

Great, now I'm grumpy...



>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Rich Brown <richb.hanover at gmail.com> wrote:
>> See the second paragraph of:
>>
>> https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/we-want-internet-providers-respond-internet-demand-not-shape-it
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Täht
>
> NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article



-- 
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article