Fwd: [Arch-econ] Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is being quoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill

Fri Nov 11 15:43:31 UTC 2005

thank you Vint.

folks please note Vint's remarks on common carriage.  This stuff gets  
very complicate very fast and i do not have it all at the tip of my  
tongue by any means.  Vint did engage with Fred Goldstein, Andrew  
Odlyzko, David Isenberg and others in a discussion of this about 3  
weeks ago.

Please note also Vint's remark:

> If ISPs were to inspect packets and interfere with those of  
> competing application providers (voice, video), I would consider  
> that a violation of the principle of network neutrality.

I  have NOT been reading this bill carefully myself
dangerous i know.  BUT if i understand it correctly this is precisely  
what this bill would allow and this is NOT I think what any of us  
want.  For whatever my opinion is worth I hope you all  will oppose  
this loud and clear.

=============================================================
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ  
08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook at cookreport.com  
Subscription
info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and  an Internet
Economic  & Business Model  at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml
=============================================================

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Vint Cerf" <vint at google.com>
> Date: November 11, 2005 10:10:40 AM EST
> To: "'economics of ip networks'"
> Subject: Re:Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is  
> beingquoted on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet  
> neutrality bill
> Reply-To: economics of ip networks
>
>
> Gordon,
>
> today, you are typically charged based on the maximum capacity of  
> the access circuit you "purchase" - that's flat rate. At the time  
> (8 years ago) people wanted to have the burst rate but didn't want  
> to pay for the unused capacity so we instituted a tiered pricing  
> system that allowed them, e.g., to burst at 45 Mb/s but only pay  
> for the effectively used capacity. As I recall, we used something  
> like the 95th percentile as a measurement of capacity used - in  
> other words, you paid for that capacity below which 95% of all  
> sampled rates fell. I don't recall all the details but there may  
> have been a fixed/variable structure. A fixed amount for having  
> access to burst capacity of a certain size and a variable amount  
> depending on average rate. the implication is that if you purchased  
> a burst T1 and used half on the average you might pay less than if  
> you purchased burst T3 and used only a half T1's worth. The  
> somewhat higher charge would be a consequence of having access to a  
> higher absolute rate/capacity. This idea may still have legs today  
> although as speeds increase, and prices fall, it may not be nearly  
> the same issue as it was eight years ago. You might ask MCI and  
> other ISPs what their pricing structures are today for some  
> perspective.
>
> I do not see that tiered pricing is a neutrality threat. Neutrality  
> has to do with differentiation with regard to the actual content  
> carried (or service provided). If ISPs were to inspect packets and  
> interfere with those of competing application providers (voice,  
> video), I would consider that a violation of the principle of  
> network neutrality. One might think of the notion of neutrality as  
> the 21st C version of common carriage although I hesitate to draw  
> the comparison if only because of the complex way in which "common  
> carriage" concept and rules have evolved.
>
> vint
>
>
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google/Regus
> Herndon, VA 20171
>
>
>
> vint at google.com
> www.google.com
>
>
>
> From:  On Behalf Of Gordon Cook
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:40 AM
> To: economics of ip networks
> Subject: Vint an interview you did with me in 1997 is beingquoted  
> on Nanog as reason to support the current so callednet neutrality bill
>
> Any comments?
>
> Any comments from anyone?
>
> From: sean at donelan.com
> Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
> Date: November 11, 2005 12:58:40 AM EST
> To: christopher.morrow at mci.com
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
>> oops ;) my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X  
>> speed, it
>> was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long  
>> bandwidth
>> but price alone.
>>
>
> In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing
> when he was still with MCI.
>
> http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml
> Although MCI has not yet made a formal announcement via a press  
> release,
> Cerf explained that "we are plainly discussing this with you, Gordon,
> and your readers." The MCI move is the outcome of what Cerf describes
> as a crunch between the Internet's flat rate pricing model and usage
> patterns where both the amount of use and disparity between use by
> applications has increased dramatically.
>
> Will consumers prefer to pay higher flat rate charges for  
> everything, or
> prefer different pricing models when they access applications which
> require dramatically different service levels to include the cost as
> part of an application specific fee?
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Gordon Cook <cook at cookreport.com>
>> Date: November 11, 2005 9:11:17 AM EST
>> To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
>> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
>>
>>
>>
>> Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian  
>> trap - worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you  
>> write in past.
>>
>> Think about what you are saying: " Something to consider about  
>> this proposed "regulation"... It is actually
>>
>>> in many ways proposed "deregulation"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it is indeed. It frees the duopoly to do whatever it wants.  
>> And Whittacre has said what he wants and what he will do quite  
>> plainly -- has he not? He will charge google and yahoo and skype  
>> for using his networks.
>>
>> Here is how this legislation is being read in London at a public  
>> telco blog recently launched by DRKW the large investment bank:
>> http://telcotech.drkw.com/blog/archives/2005/11/will_evil_preva.html
>>
>> "For all of our sakes lets hope that the telcos are not successful  
>> in their lobbying effort in the US. If they are successful, you  
>> can bet that your investment in the fixed telecoms utilities is  
>> safer but innovation on the internet is in jeopardy - which do you  
>> think creates more incremental future value in the world ultimately?"
>>
>> Vint Cerf is on my economics of IP networks private mail list. The  
>> DRKW blog post partially cited above came in part from a public  
>> item comment of Vint's that i posted day before yesterday to my  
>> private list. It is fascinating that Sean Donelan whom I have  
>> known and respected since 1991 dug that 1997 item quote from Vint  
>> from my archives. Donelan: "In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the  
>> necessity of usage based pricing when he was still with MCI.
>>
>> http://www.cookreport.com/05.10.shtml
>>
>> COOK Report: Recall the date. This is PRE stupid network and again  
>> VINT is taking the pre-internet pre stupid network telco point of  
>> view. I'll post this to my list and see if Vint has anything that  
>> he wants to say about this 8 year old opinion.
>>
>> Owen, do you want some legislation that gives the CEO of ATT/SBC  
>> the world largest dinosaur a blank check to do as he wishes with  
>> *HIS* network. This bills language is HIGHLY deceptive. I too  
>> despise government incompetence but giving Whittacre a blank check  
>> is IMHO much worse. But don't take my word for it - check out  
>> DRKW's analyst's opinion. Fred Goldstein also has a pretty good  
>> analysis. I probably will not further respond to this thread  
>> discussion. Please forgive me but I am swamped with many things  
>> that demand attention.
>>
>> =============================================================
>> The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ  
>> 08618 USA
>> 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) cook at cookreport.com  
>> Subscription
>> info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet
>> Economic & Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml
>> =============================================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2005, at 1:38 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Something to consider about this proposed "regulation"... It is  
>>> actually
>>> in many ways proposed "deregulation". This bill removes more  
>>> authority
>>> from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It  
>>> provides
>>> a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation  
>>> and
>>> a couple of other minor consumer protections, says "The  
>>> government shall
>>> butt the hell out."
>>>
>>> That's why I like it.
>>>
>>
>> But Owen - what if getting evil gov't out gives Whittacre a blank  
>> check?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051111/50781c3c/attachment.html>