Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Russ,

It has been consistently hard to explain that diffserv is not a
prioritisation scheme, even within the technical community, let
alone to the regulators and the media. I think your comments as
quoted are as good as we can expect from journalists.

It should be a matter of concern to all of us here that the US FCC
isn't confused into regulating the technology. It would set a bad
precedent for regulators in other countries. I am making no comment
as to whether they should regulate carrier's charging practices; that's
entirely a national matter that shouldn't concern the IETF in any way.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-09-03 05:47, Russ Housley wrote:
> I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to
> the press yesterday.  Clearly, these comments do not represent IETF
> consensus in any way.  They are my opinion, and the reporter was told to
> express them as my opinion.
> 
> One thing that I said was not captured quite right.  The article says:
> "With services that require certain speeds to operate smoothly, such as
> Internet telephony, calls are given precedence over TV, Housley said."
> I actually said that DiffServ can be used to make sure that traffic
> associated with applications that require timely delivery, like voice
> and video, to give preference over traffic associated with applications
> without those demands, like email.
> 
> The whole article is copied below, and it is online here:
> http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/tc_20100902_7144.php
> 
> Russ
> 
> =============
> 
> How Neutral Is The Internet?: Existing Limits Are In The Spotlight As
> AT&T And A Consumer Advocacy Group Squabble Over Net Traffic
> by Eliza Krigman
> Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010
> 
> Whether the Internet is truly a democratic forum was called into
> question this week in a dispute about Internet traffic management
> between AT&T and the consumer advocacy group Free Press.
> 
> The feud boiled down to what it means to have "paid prioritization," a
> phenomenon viewed as anathema by advocates of Internet openness, and to
> what extent preferential treatment of content already takes place. The
> issue is at the very heart of a broader debate about what regulatory
> steps are necessary, if any, to ensure the Internet remains an engine of
> economic growth and a platform of equal value to people across the
> socioeconomic spectrum.
> 
> AT&T, in a letter filed with the Federal Communications Commission on
> Monday, argued that paid prioritization of Internet traffic, contrary to
> claims made by Free Press, is already a common practice of Web
> management and consistent with protocols set by the Internet Engineering
> Task Force. Largely unknown to people outside the technology field, IETF
> is a professional organization composed of engineers that develop
> standards for the Internet; for over two decades, it has played an
> integral role in the management of the Internet.
> 
> The current chair of the IETF, Russ Housley, disagrees with AT&T's
> assessment.
> 
> "AT&T's characterization is misleading," Housley said. "IETF
> prioritization technology is geared toward letting network users
> indicate how they want network providers to handle their traffic, and
> there is no implication in the IETF about payment based on any
> prioritization."
> 
> Dedicated lines of service, according to AT&T, are examples of current
> paid prioritization schemes, a concept Free Press flatly disagrees with.
> 
> AT&T constructed "bogus interpretations of 'paid prioritization' that
> reflect no arguments or statements made by the FCC or any proponents of
> net neutrality," said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press.
> The group calls paid prioritization an anti-consumer practice where
> third-party content owners can pay an Internet service provider to "cut
> to the front of the line" in Web traffic. It's a practice that would
> lead to a pay-to-play scenario where only big business could afford the
> premium channels needed to compete, net neutrality advocates say,
> thereby squeezing the little guys out of the market.
> 
> But AT&T dismisses those assertions, saying Free Press' acceptance of
> dedicated lines of service as a management practice is hypocritical
> given its stance against paid prioritization.
> 
> "We understand why Free Press is upset with our letter," said Michael
> Balmoris, spokesman for AT&T. "We outed them by shedding light on their
> inconsistencies. After all, for years Free Press has used empty rhetoric
> and faux-technical mumbo jumbo to demonize any paid prioritization."
> 
> In the conclusion of its letter, AT&T implored the FCC not to limit or
> ban paid prioritization, positing that it would be "contrary to the
> goals of innovation, investment, and growth and contrary to the
> interests of small, medium-sized, and minority-owned businesses."
> 
> Most professionals in the telecommunications and Internet field
> acknowledge that some content already does get right of way on the Web.
> The debate hinges on to what extent it is appropriate and whether paying
> for priority empowers networks at the expense of user control.
> 
> "Wireless use is prioritized," said Steve Largent, president and CEO of
> CTIA-The Wireless Association. "Your voice calls take precedence over
> your data usage, your interactive data usage is prioritized over your
> standard data usage, and your 911 calls supersede all of it."
> 
> For wireless -- which operates on spectrum, a resource with dramatically
> less capacity than physical cables -- prioritization is a big issue.
> 
> "One strand of fiber has more capacity that the entire electromagnetic
> spectrum," Largent said, explaining the need for prioritization.
> 
> With services that require certain speeds to operate smoothly, such as
> Internet telephony, calls are given precedence over TV, Housley said.
> Otherwise, the call might be subject to jittery reception. In these
> instances, Housley notes, the preferred treatment is consumer-driven by
> the purchase of multiple products that share an access line.
> 
> As evidenced by the spat between AT&T and Free Press, whether network
> providers should be able to charge online companies extra fees for
> faster delivery of their traffic to consumers is extremely controversial.
> 
> The matter is under consideration by the FCC, which issued a formal
> request for public comment Wednesday on whether open Internet rules
> should apply to mobile broadband and specialized services.
> 
> The notice was released less than a month after Google and Verizon
> released their proposed policy framework aimed at finding middle ground
> on the network neutrality debate. Their proposal called for barring
> wireline broadband providers from discriminating against or prioritizing
> lawful Internet content, applications or services. However, the
> framework called for exempting fast-growing wireless Internet services
> from all the principles except for transparency and allowing for
> specialized services to be fast-tracked over the Internet.
> 
> Public interest groups blast the FCC for stalling on a decision about
> how to regulate broadband and protect consumers. Industry, including
> AT&T, Verizon and CTIA, praised the commission for its fact-finding
> endeavor.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]