[Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] a start at the FCC filing

[Michael Richardson]

David P. Reed <dpreed at deepplum.com> wrote:
    > 2. Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really
    > about keeping Internet routing intermediaries from being selective
    > about what packets they would deliver and what ones they would not. The
    > design of the Internet was completely based on open carriage of all
    > packets without the routers billing for or metering based on end-to-end
    > concerns. Again, for a variety of reasons, this simple idea got
    > entangled with partisanship politically - such that advocates for an
    > Open Internet were seen to be promoting both Democratic Party and
    > Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact, the case for Open Internet is
    > not primarily political. It's about scalability of the infrastructure
    > and the ability to carry Internet packets over any concatenation of
    > paths, for mutual benefit to all users.

I very much think that there is a difference between intermediaries being
selective based upon their own rules, vs ones that can be paid by end points.

I think that the problem Network Neutrality is largely one of of scale:  if
the only entities that can buy transit are large entities that do it via
board-level contract, then we have a problem.  If an individual (TCP)
transmitter or receiver can purchase transit, then it's terribly powerful.

It's not that we don't want packets treated differently, it's that we want
neutrality in contracts.

ATM failed for a number of reasons, but a major one was that channels could
only be purchased by operators, not end users. There was simply no interface
to the end user.  This is an OS issue as well as a network issue.
Once you eliminate all those pesky end-users, the entire process gets
simplified to MPLS, and now to the simpler forms of SegmentRouting.

AFAIK, 5G (and the advanced versions of SRH) is based upon the end users
being able to ask for bandwidth when they need it.  AFAIK, 5G still provides
no useful interface to the end user/application, so 90% of the promises of 5G
are really dead in the water.

    > In a world where compromise is allowed to generate solutions to
    > problems, polarizing would not be effective to kill a good idea, rather
    > merely raising the issue would lead to recognizing the problem is
    > important and joint work to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet
    > was not partisan. Its designers weren't party members or loyalists. We
    > were solving a problem of creating a scalable, efficient alternative to
    > the "Bell System" model of communications where every piece of gear got
    > involved in deciding what to do with each bit of information, where
    > there were "voice bits" and "data bits", "business bits" and
    > "residential bits", and every piece of equipment had to be told
    > everything about each bits (through call setup).

That's not fair: it was partisan.  It was anti-Bell-System model.
What's occured lately is that the Bell-System model is trying to reassert itself.

    > Either way, you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Party
    > Loyalist issue.

+1

    > (Since many seem to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and
    > Right or Democrat or Republican, let me explain. My core political view
    > has always been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily
    > is the same thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means,
    > but that organization of functions in society "organically" is better
    > than any governmental approach. This view is compatible with the

Or, centralization where technically necessary, but not necessarily centralization.

    > Internet's founding principles. I view the Democrats and the
    > Republicans as centralizers of power, each in their own way. Which is
    > why I will not be loyal to either. That Socialists want to create
    > centralized power just as much as Conservatives do. But making
    > decentralized structures work isn't just a matter of creating a
    > distributed ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact those things lead
    > to centralizing power very efficiently.)

I agree.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr at sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20210221/f27eed8a/attachment.sig>