ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: My comments to the press about RFC 2474

2010-09-02 16:21:06
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf