Search Results for: neutrality

Comcast and Level 3 get into a tiff over interconnection fees and the blogosphere screams out “net neutrality”. This issue does not mean the end of the internet as we know it, despite the rhetoric of the blogosphere that has been conscripted by Level 3 to their side of the issue.

Level 3 was first to invoke the FCC’s Policy Principles in its statement on Monday. Comcast responded, saying that Level 3’s traffic was out of balance by a 5:1 ratio on its peering interconnection. Level 3 replied today.

Comcast has a clearly stated peering policy [Settlement-Free Interconnection] that would seemingly apply to all parties. Among other requirements, it says:

Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and Comcast that enables a general balance of inbound versus outbound traffic.

Level 3 appears to have failed that balance, by a very large margin. This is not a naive, unsophisticated customer that had the traffic imbalance come out of the blue. This is a straight commercial issue between two very large companies.

It appears to me that any other interconnecting company would be told the same thing, that it no longer qualifies for Settlement Free Interconnection, so here is our other product: Wholesale Dedicated IP Transit.

Comcast has to treat all interconnecting carriers the same. Anything else would be discriminatory.

So, last Friday, Democrat US Representatives Ed Markey and Anna Eshoo introduced a Net Neutrality Bill that has been attracting a lot of attention.

I caught a tweet on Monday evening from CIPPIC that asked “where’s ours!!”

Of course, when you read the bill [ pdf, 49KB], you’ll realize that most of these proposed protections are already part of Canada’s Telecom Act. The one novel proposed amendment to the 75 year old US Communications Act was one that seeks:

to ensure that consumers receive meaningful information regarding their communications services;

In other words, increased transparency, as was suggested by a number of parties in the recent network management proceeding.

Canada’s regulatory framework already captures protections that the US is just starting to consider in legislation. What more is needed?

Net neutrality can kill investment in broadband, according to a must-read commentary by Financial Post editor Terence Corcoran.

He says that what we need is more investment in broadband, not more rules that inhibit capital spending.

The CRTC got this right the first time. Moving now to force Bell and the other firms to shape their businesses to meet the demands of people who want a piece of the action or who have fantasy views of the Internet as a public utility can only divert industry attention and resources away from market solutions and efficient development of new broadband services to reduce congestion.

He uses a swimming pool metaphor, perhaps in hopes of more summer-like weather.

Read the full column.

On his blog, Bill St. Arnaud asks “Will bandwidth caps be the next battle for Network Neutrality”? His piece opens with some commentary:

Increasingly we are seeing carriers look to impose bandwidth caps and a variety of tiered services for Internet usage. Although I think some sort of bandwidth cap may be necessary for egregious users, there [sic] proliferation and adoption by cablecos and telco flies in the face of the fact that growth of Internet traffic is slowing down substantially as evidenced by the data provided by Andrew Olydzko. The cablecos and telcos seem to be the only industry that intentionally punishes their biggest customers when given declining growth rates they should be rewarding them. One suspects other motives may be at play

If you actually look at the data from Andrew Olydzko [ppt, 299 KB], you’ll see that the “slowing down substantially” refers to only 50-60%! That is 50-60% growth on a huge base and enormous penetration rate, meaning that in absolute terms, we still are seeing significant growth.

Of course, this is nothing (on a percentage basis) compared to wireless growth of 500% but you need to look beyond the percentages at the real numbers.

As to Bill’s comment that “cablecos and telcos seem to be the only industry that intentionally punishes their biggest customers when given declining growth rates”, I can’t figure out what he is talking about. Every service I pay for charges me more when I use more. Electricity, water, gasoline. Even car leases charge extra if you exceed the predicted mileage.

If you want to look at these kinds of issues in depth, you need to attend The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit.

We have a session called Building Broadband on June 15, featuring real network operators, like the presidents of Sasktel, Cogeco Data Services and Barrett Xplore, suppliers like Motorola as well as the author of Homes with Tails. On June 16, we have a panel looking at Net Neutrality featuring Skype, Rogers and Sandvine. Have you registered yet?

Technorati Tags:
net neutrality, Canadian Telecom Summit

The CRTC has opened up an on-line public consultation for its proceeding that is examining internet Network Management by Canada’s ISPs.

The e-consultation is open until April 30 and can be found at this website, which contains a welcome message from Namir Anani, the CRTC’s executive director for policy development and research.

The public is invited to discuss various topics and questions related to Internet traffic management practices, including:

• the impact of these practices on the user experience and on innovation
• the different approaches to Internet traffic management
• the role of the CRTC in relation to Internet traffic management practices, and
• the disclosure of Internet traffic management practices by ISPs.

A transcript of the discussion and threads will become part of the public record for the proceeding, which has oral hearings in early July.

The 2009 Canadian Telecom Summit includes an in-depth look at many of these issues, with our net neutrality panel featuring Mike Lee of Rogers, Chris Libertelli of Skype and Dave Caputo from Sandvine.

Technorati Tags:
network management, CRTC, net neutrality, Skype, Rogers, Sandvine