Re: Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Marc Aniballi <marcaniballi () gmail com>
Date: February 26, 2007 10:53:42 AM JST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] Re: Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks

While I can understand the "plight" of the network service provider,  
I don't
believe that "censoring" a client's options in using the packet flow  
they
have purchased is ridiculous.

When I purchase network connectivity - whether wireline or wireless, I
expect to be able to send and receive packets at whatever "rate" I've
purchased with no other limitations. If I choose to run Skype, and I  
have
purchased the suitable connectivity to allow it to operate, then the
application's "consumption profile" is not my issue, beyond it possibly
being too much for my purchased connectivity rate/speed.

The obvious solution to Brett's dilemma is to modify pricing such  
that high
volume users pay more than low volume users. Unfortunately, in the  
current
market, that would be a recipe for commercial disaster. The long term
direction of network connectivity is ubiquitous flat fee personal  
usage. An
interim stage may be volume metering similar to electrical utilities (so
many pennies per GB in packet volume) - but I don't think market  
forces will
prefer that to flat rate unlimited. The true downside to the telco/ 
ISP is
the commoditization of the network provider's product - infrastructure
(never a good story for any industry with a product that has no  
intellectual
property). This is already becoming apparent in Europe. Layering  
proprietary
services on top is fine, but most telcos don't realize that they are  
going
to be competing with every bright idea in the world, and most of those
bright ideas are self funded and freely distributed; a difficult  
model to
compete with commercially.

Marc Aniballi
Crack Method

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 8:15 PM
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] Re: Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks



Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: February 26, 2007 9:02:05 AM JST
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: Re: [IP] Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks

At 12:48 PM 2/24/2007, Bob Hinden wrote:

> > Skype yesterday petitioned the FCC to lay the smack down on
> > wireless phone carriers who "limit subscribers' right to run
> > software communications applications of their choosing" (read:
> > Skype software). Skype wants the agency to more stringently apply
> > the famous 1968 Carterfone decision that allowed consumers to hook
> > any device up to the phone network, so long as it did not harm the
> > network. In Skype's eyes, that means allowing any software or
> > applications to run on any devices that access the network.
>
> To me, this is what "Network Neutrality" is all about.  Is it OK for
> the network provider to limit the applications that can use the
> network?

Dave, and members of the IP list:

Actually, as an ISP, I would argue that the answer is "Yes."

While this looks, superficially, like a consumer rights issue, it is in
fact a bit more than that.

The key thing that one must understand -- and this is a bit technical --
is that Skype works by "robbing" bandwidth from its users and their
ISPs. Skype does not buy enough bandwidth to route or connect all of the
calls placed via its network. At any time, a Skype user who merely has
the software running -- but is not making a call -- may be using
bandwidth
to connect a call that involves neither the user's ISP nor any of that
ISP's customers. This is a moderate concern on a land-based network, but
is of GREAT concern on wireless networks, which are severely constrained
by tower capacity and the scarcity of radio spectrum.

If Skype, by operating on the wireless provider's network, would in
effect be consuming the provider's valuable bandwidth and airtime
without compensation (which really does seem to be the case), the
cell phone company is perfectly justified in saying, "No." We operate
a terrestrial broadband network (not a cell phone network), which
has more capacity. Nonetheless, we do find that we're impacted by
bandwidth-robbing applications and do find that it is necessary to
rein them in (though we do not currently ban them).

--Brett Glass



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/@now
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com