Lee W McKnight on Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle djf comment)

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

You know I  agree with Lee on this one. djf
________________________________________
From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh () syr edu]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:38 PM
To: David Farber; ip
Subject: RE: [IP] Lee W McKnight on  Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

Dave,

For IP again if you wish.

I don't think I or Richard said it was -only- Google's distribution costs driving the NN debate; just that we should 
not pretend there is not a distribution elephant in the room, or on the net.  Because there clearly is.

My specific objection is to the spin/phrase 'network neutrality' which posits anyone against that phrase by definition 
is not neutral, and therefore bad; which is just as clever as the copyright industry's success in brainwashing many 
into saying 'piracy' like we're talking about Somalian pirates, instead of the act of hitting 'save.'

Anyway, I don't debate NN, because that elephant doesn't exist, it is just spin.

But if we want to talk service qualities, regulation of networks and content/apps, the end to end principle, whatever, 
even good old common carriage, happy to debate.

Just don't say NN, since it makes me want to throw up, as another person has fallen into someone else's agenda-setting 
trap.

Lee




-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Fri 7/11/2008 10:34 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Lee W McKnight on  Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle


________________________________________
From: Rob Frieden [rmf5 () psu edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:21 PM
To: David Farber
Cc: ip
Subject: Re: [IP] Lee W McKnight on  Bennett Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle

Hello All:

         As someone, also unfunded/unsponsored, but interested in the topic of network neutrality, I respectfully 
disagree with the notion that this issue is nothing more or less than a matter of Google's Internet distribution costs. 
 That view is equally narrow as the notion, expoused by several economists at the recent International 
Telecommunications Society conference (see http://www.itsworld.org/Montreal2008/)
that network neutrality advocacy does nothing more than delay or frustrate the rightful efforts of ISPs somehow 
"entitled" to extract more rents from content providers such as Google.

       I often find myself in the middle between the two network neutrality pole: the Yoo/Wu continuum perhaps.  On the 
demand side, I have no problem with content providers willingly opting in for better than best efforts, premium QOS 
routing at a higher price.  On the other hand the sponsored researchers who try to establish some new economic rule 
that two sided-markets require cash payments from upstream content providers have it wrong: Google and other content 
providers pay for access, but their ISPs may negotiate a zero cost peering agreement.

       My primary concern lies in whether upstream content providers--including the yet to be discovered or created 
next Google--face retaliation from ISPs for not opting for premium QOS routing. If the smart folks at Enron could learn 
how to manipulate the flow of electrons what prevents smart ISP operators from similarly manipulating the flow of 
packets similarly requiring "urgent" real time delivery?
Put another way will ISPs retaliate against opt-out content providers with the creation of artificial congestion, by 
dropping packets, inserting traffic resend commands and partitioning bandwidth with an eye toward forcing migration to 
premium service even as the division guarantees inferior service?

       Regards,

       Rob Frieden
--
Pioneers Chair and Professor of Telecommunications and Law
Penn State University
102 Carnegie Building, University Park, PA  16802
office: (814) 863-7996; fax (814) 863-8161
Web page:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/r/m/rmf5/
Faculty profile:
http://www.psu.edu/dept/comm/faculty/frieden.html
SSRN Papers Site:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=102928



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com