Comments on: The FCC and the Giant Zero http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/ Same old blog, brand new place Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:24:25 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Vasco Névoa http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28675 Vasco Névoa Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:50:36 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28675 Now imagine my frustration: here in Portugal, the maximum upload bandwidth you can buy as a home consumer is 512 kb/s. All ISPs make sure to offer the exact same max "up", while competing solely on the basis of "down" speed versus cost. The asymmetry here is so damn screamingly obvious that it is in fact invisible. This creates incredibly asymmetric offers such as the xDSL 24 Mb/s "down" with the same old 0.5 Mb/s "up", a down/up ratio of 48 times. If there was ever a walled garden in the telco bizz, we're it! How the heck are we going to change people's mentalities, when they still think 3-play is the hottest thing around and that "one-size-fits-all" service set-top-boxes are the way of the future??? Pfff!... wish I was there, dudes. Now imagine my frustration: here in Portugal, the maximum upload bandwidth you can buy as a home consumer is 512 kb/s.
All ISPs make sure to offer the exact same max “up”, while competing solely on the basis of “down” speed versus cost.
The asymmetry here is so damn screamingly obvious that it is in fact invisible.
This creates incredibly asymmetric offers such as the xDSL 24 Mb/s “down” with the same old 0.5 Mb/s “up”, a down/up ratio of 48 times.
If there was ever a walled garden in the telco bizz, we’re it!
How the heck are we going to change people’s mentalities, when they still think 3-play is the hottest thing around and that “one-size-fits-all” service set-top-boxes are the way of the future???
Pfff!… wish I was there, dudes.

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28305 Doc Searls Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:59:28 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28305 True, it can be done. To be fair, and welcoming of change, I should mention that since the hearing on Monday I have had a number of direct and indirect contacts with clueful Comcast folks who are very eager to move on to better and more productive relationships with customers. And I'm eager to get back next week so I can follow up on some of those. True, it can be done.

To be fair, and welcoming of change, I should mention that since the hearing on Monday I have had a number of direct and indirect contacts with clueful Comcast folks who are very eager to move on to better and more productive relationships with customers. And I’m eager to get back next week so I can follow up on some of those.

]]> By: New Paradigm Emerging |gangbuster http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28289 New Paradigm Emerging |gangbuster Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:19:45 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28289 [...] to be open source, to eliminate silo lock-in, as well as retain a carbon-copy of our gestures and “prosumption,” a term Doc Searl’s came up with to identify the fact that we produce and consume. It is the very nature of the [...] [...] to be open source, to eliminate silo lock-in, as well as retain a carbon-copy of our gestures and “prosumption,” a term Doc Searl’s came up with to identify the fact that we produce and consume. It is the very nature of the [...]

]]> By: topicalhuman.com » Blog Archive » The continuing debate about Net Neutrality http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28094 topicalhuman.com » Blog Archive » The continuing debate about Net Neutrality Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:38:40 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28094 [...] (a good thing), and I think one of the most important (yet simple) observations recently made is by Doc Searls: We need symmetricality, not just [...] [...] (a good thing), and I think one of the most important (yet simple) observations recently made is by Doc Searls: We need symmetricality, not just [...]

]]> By: Slamlander http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28050 Slamlander Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:29:34 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28050 Just one itty-bitty point: You can run servers behind almost any IP lash up. I have BlueWin.CH ADSL w/ dynamic IP and my external DNS services are handled by DynDNS.Org. I have four servers (Win2KAS) providing a number of services. Of course the problem is ComCast, which contractually prohibits users from doing such things. However, that does not mean that it cannot be done. I worked on the HFC system for PacBell (before SBC), HFC can deliver awesome bandwidth and with no real congestion problems, if built correctly (for various flavors of ''Correctly''). Yes, ComCast is either lying or has incompetent engineers. Just one itty-bitty point:

You can run servers behind almost any IP lash up.

I have BlueWin.CH ADSL w/ dynamic IP and my external DNS services are handled by DynDNS.Org. I have four servers (Win2KAS) providing a number of services.

Of course the problem is ComCast, which contractually prohibits users from doing such things. However, that does not mean that it cannot be done. I worked on the HFC system for PacBell (before SBC), HFC can deliver awesome bandwidth and with no real congestion problems, if built correctly (for various flavors of ”Correctly”). Yes, ComCast is either lying or has incompetent engineers.

]]> By: Keith Dick http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28028 Keith Dick Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:07:18 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28028 Mike: I think you dropped a zero. At least the number I believe I've frequently seen cited as the amount of money we gave the industry for build-out of high-speed service is $200 billion, not the $20 billion you mentioned. Am I remembering the amount incorrectly? Or have I been reading incorrect statements? Mike: I think you dropped a zero. At least the number I believe I’ve frequently seen cited as the amount of money we gave the industry for build-out of high-speed service is $200 billion, not the $20 billion you mentioned.

Am I remembering the amount incorrectly? Or have I been reading incorrect statements?

]]> By: Carter f Smith http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28022 Carter f Smith Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:40:13 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28022 I really don't think there's a whole lot of long-term support for Net Neutrality, but it sure does make for some interesting dialog. As the Internet forms and transforms, so many people have so many views on what should be and what will be. These often conflicting and usually opposing views seem to miss the reality of what the Internet and Neutrality is all about. The premise of neutrality is objectivity, or freedom from bias. The premise of Net Neutrality is the absence of restrictions by those providing access on those for whom the access is provided. If this sounds like the western expansion in the United States (and other countries before it), or if someone has burdened you with the metaphor of Internet expansion as space exploration, that's because we, as humans, have the need to relate new things to old paradigms. If we are looking for something to really relate this to, it's pretty simple . . . the Internet is like Utopia! http://carterfsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/utopic-neutrality.html I really don’t think there’s a whole lot of long-term support for Net Neutrality, but it sure does make for some interesting dialog. As the Internet forms and transforms, so many people have so many views on what should be and what will be. These often conflicting and usually opposing views seem to miss the reality of what the Internet and Neutrality is all about.

The premise of neutrality is objectivity, or freedom from bias.

The premise of Net Neutrality is the absence of restrictions by those providing access on those for whom the access is provided.

If this sounds like the western expansion in the United States (and other countries before it), or if someone has burdened you with the metaphor of Internet expansion as space exploration, that’s because we, as humans, have the need to relate new things to old paradigms. If we are looking for something to really relate this to, it’s pretty simple . . . the Internet is like Utopia!

http://carterfsmith.blogspot.com/2008/02/utopic-neutrality.html

]]> By: Mike Warot http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28020 Mike Warot Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:46:34 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28020 Jon, I've got about 120 Gigabytes of photos and video I want to put on Flickr and YouTube... there's no way I'm going to attempt that with any of the existing connections available to me. The cable company at home would kick me off as a suspected pirate (though I have to cutlass and am not good at sea)... and the connection at work is only 3.5 Mbps on a good day. We gave the telcos 20 Billion build fiber to us... and we got bubkes. Jon,
I’ve got about 120 Gigabytes of photos and video I want to put on Flickr and YouTube… there’s no way I’m going to attempt that with any of the existing connections available to me. The cable company at home would kick me off as a suspected pirate (though I have to cutlass and am not good at sea)… and the connection at work is only 3.5 Mbps on a good day.

We gave the telcos 20 Billion build fiber to us… and we got bubkes.

]]> By: Jon Garfunkel http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28019 Jon Garfunkel Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:27:07 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28019 re: The problem we have now is that the “give us more crowd” is largely ignored by the carriers. Sounds like a problem for VRM to solve! Register a website called BiggerPipes.net or something. Mashup with the appropriate mapping tool. Have people post if they have general bandwidth needs or specific latency complaints. Shoot, I'd post when my Comcast DTV signal gets lossy. As they rallied in ancient Rome: e pluribus unum! e pluribus unum! (After a while, Verizon's FIOS marketing unit will fund the site. Yes, at the core I agree with you on on Cluetrain/VRM -- if you don't know what the customers want, just *ask* them openly. :-) re: The problem we have now is that the “give us more crowd” is largely ignored by the carriers.

Sounds like a problem for VRM to solve! Register a website called BiggerPipes.net or something. Mashup with the appropriate mapping tool. Have people post if they have general bandwidth needs or specific latency complaints. Shoot, I’d post when my Comcast DTV signal gets lossy. As they rallied in ancient Rome: e pluribus unum! e pluribus unum!

(After a while, Verizon’s FIOS marketing unit will fund the site. Yes, at the core I agree with you on on Cluetrain/VRM — if you don’t know what the customers want, just *ask* them openly. :-)

]]> By: Doc Searls http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/comment-page-1/#comment-28004 Doc Searls Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:13:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2008/02/25/the-fcc-and-the-giant-zero/#comment-28004 Jon, You're right that the desire for home servers alone is insufficient justification for system-wide provisioning of symmetrical service. But so also is basing provisioning speeds and features on current usage alone, which takes place entirely within the restrictions already imposed. Yes, the carriers pay attention to usage, but much potential usage is prevented by existing provisioning. A guy from my Santa Barbara provider, Cox, once told a room full of local citizens, most of them techies working in the computing, networking and entertainment business, that there was no need for upstream speed increases because they haven't measured any demand for it. This was when they were allowing no more than ~350kbps upstream speed, and many in the room had already told the guy that they had to go to distant offices (Hollywood, in the case of entertainment guys) or Starbucks, or some other place, to get the upstream bandwidth they needed for their work. When Cox was pressed on the matter, they said it came down to primary usage of their network, which was television. The internet is secondary for them. As more individuals and companies take advantage of web services such ad Amazon's S3 (storage) and EC2 (compute power), the need for fat symmetrical service will increase. So will the need for ordinary citizens to upload HD movies of their own creation, to wherever. Provisioning of services on the model of TV demand imagined in the mid 90s is not only antique but restrictive of innovation anywhere outside the carriers themselves. And that's what's at stake here. Check out http://www.digisenseinc.com/. Their business is selling systems that provide remote storage with local cacheing built to work around the asymmetrical provisioning of nearly all carriers. Can the carriers measure the actual usage here? Only if they notice huge spikes in uploads in the middle of the night. And I kinda doubt most of them are paying close attention. The problem we have now is that the "give us more crowd" is largely ignored by the carriers. Whether the need is for home servers or the need to do live CGI over fat pipes, or remote storage, or whatever, the need is real. The demand is real. And most of the carriers are doing their best to ignore it. Doesn't mean I favor more carrier regulation, by the way. Does mean I want to see the market for networking opened up, and cut free from the regulatory regime that has been around far longer than most of us have been alive. Jon,

You’re right that the desire for home servers alone is insufficient justification for system-wide provisioning of symmetrical service. But so also is basing provisioning speeds and features on current usage alone, which takes place entirely within the restrictions already imposed.

Yes, the carriers pay attention to usage, but much potential usage is prevented by existing provisioning. A guy from my Santa Barbara provider, Cox, once told a room full of local citizens, most of them techies working in the computing, networking and entertainment business, that there was no need for upstream speed increases because they haven’t measured any demand for it. This was when they were allowing no more than ~350kbps upstream speed, and many in the room had already told the guy that they had to go to distant offices (Hollywood, in the case of entertainment guys) or Starbucks, or some other place, to get the upstream bandwidth they needed for their work. When Cox was pressed on the matter, they said it came down to primary usage of their network, which was television. The internet is secondary for them.

As more individuals and companies take advantage of web services such ad Amazon’s S3 (storage) and EC2 (compute power), the need for fat symmetrical service will increase. So will the need for ordinary citizens to upload HD movies of their own creation, to wherever. Provisioning of services on the model of TV demand imagined in the mid 90s is not only antique but restrictive of innovation anywhere outside the carriers themselves. And that’s what’s at stake here.

Check out http://www.digisenseinc.com/. Their business is selling systems that provide remote storage with local cacheing built to work around the asymmetrical provisioning of nearly all carriers. Can the carriers measure the actual usage here? Only if they notice huge spikes in uploads in the middle of the night. And I kinda doubt most of them are paying close attention.

The problem we have now is that the “give us more crowd” is largely ignored by the carriers. Whether the need is for home servers or the need to do live CGI over fat pipes, or remote storage, or whatever, the need is real. The demand is real. And most of the carriers are doing their best to ignore it.

Doesn’t mean I favor more carrier regulation, by the way. Does mean I want to see the market for networking opened up, and cut free from the regulatory regime that has been around far longer than most of us have been alive.

]]>