On May 19, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 5/19/2014 10:27 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
and if you think you are big enough, you can try to outsource the
problem and dump it on the rest of the network
given the amount of confusion in this space, what is a specific example
of anyone "outsourcing" spam on the rest of the network?
i don't care whether you name names, but you need to cite technical or
operational details that make your assertion assessable.
This is the downside of a scheme that does not have a built in
settlements scheme. There are no costs applied to resources and so
working out how to dump costs onto others is all part of the game for
the operators.
Dear Phillip,
This is taking the wrong view since dynamic QOS will likely be another reason
to oversubscribe. Network protection is better achieved at access points.
Much of Internet access handles asymmetric bandwidth where downstream is 10X or
more than upstream. Examples include cable modems, ADSL, and satellite-based
networks, and don't forget dialup. Even cellular is more effective at
transmitting than receiving. Providers often offer downstream access
advertised at N bits per second. It is no coincidence, tools to measure
bandwidth quit just before bandwidth is reduced. Higher initial rates
purportedly offer faster web page access and is not dishonest provisioning. ;-)
So Internet provider C wants to ignore mutual peering and charge media provider
N for access although provider C depends on the demand for media heavy on the
downstream. Media provider N pays for Internet access as does customers of C.
Because the FCC has not classified Internet access as a utility, access
providers are free to double bill and blame others for slow access. It would
be like an electric utility charging Frigidaire a fee based on demand by their
ratepayers and then blaming Frigidaire for brown-outs when power distribution
is inadequate.
EFF is dropping the ball. Perhaps they know virtually everyone considers spam a
painful topic. The irony is we are about to allow access providers decide who
has adequate access and allowing them to take advantage of their mono-duo-poly
for most.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28 discusses a
proposal that allows Internet providers decide which media providers and
customers get faster service.
I remember the early days of the Internet where company A claimed to offer
Internet access that instead wanted you to be happy with websites only offered
from their datacenter with a promise that at some point in the future they
would really be offering access to the Internet. It is not surprising to see
providers wanting to offer preferential treatment. They get to decide whether
you are double-billed whenever provider N offers competitive content. So we
pay both (C+N)+N and never get a choice of X because X can't buy a seat at the
table.
Regards,
Douglas Otis