[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: [IP] Re: Skype asks FCC to open up cellular networks
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 networksWhile 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'vepurchased 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 termdirection of network connectivity is ubiquitous flat fee personal usage. An
interim stage may be volume metering similar to electrical utilities (somany 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 thosebright 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 ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC