Slashdot Mirror

Stanford University held a workshop last Friday - The Policy Implications of End-to-End - covering some of the policy questions cropping up which threaten the end-to-end paradigm that serves today's Internet so well. It was attended by representatives from the FCC, along with technologists, economists, lawyers and others. Here are my notes from the workshop. I'm going to try to skip describing each individual's background and resume, instead substituting a link to a biography page whenever I can. (Part two of two - part one ran yesterday.)

The final segment of the morning covered caching. The main issue centered around transparent caching, where users ask for certain content but their request is silently fulfilled by a caching proxy server instead, generally without the user having any way to detect this. The standard concept of caching has the user being presented with the same content she would otherwise have gotten from the requested site, but that need not be true - Singapore, China and Australia have all used transparent caches to censor their citizens. This can also be a security violation (are you really talking to the secure server on stupidpettoys.com, or a proxy in between? Most users won't notice the difference.). Ann Brick noted a subsidiary issue - big commercial players have the ability to pay for their sites to be cached, while individuals do not. Similar to the QoS issue, this might be used to discriminate between paying, fast, commercial sites, and sites owned by individuals or even competitors.

David Clark made the insightful observation that dollars spent on caching don't go to general network improvements -- one small piece of the network is improved by caches, but the same money spent improving the whole network could improve it for everyone. Timothy Denton concluded this segment with the characterization of transparent caching as the difference between "form follows function" and "function follows form": the mere presence of caching and the ability to interfere with content delivery in the middle of the network destroys end-to-end and creates opportunities for mischief.

In the afternoon, there were two larger sessions covering broadband and wireless Internet access. In both areas, the companies controlling these access methods have strong motivations to violate end-to-end principles.

Jerry Duvall led the broadband discussion. He presented a rather fascinating economists' view of the situation -- an economists' world being solely concerned with customers, producers and markets. Laws are necessary to enable markets -- contract law, commercial law, fraud law, and so on are needed in order for markets to function. He summoned up the ghost of Adam Smith with a brief review of capitalism: producers always conspire against the public to get more profits from them, only competition keeps them in check. Marketing, lock-in, monopolization, and predatory pricing are always used by producers. He denied that end-to-end represented any sort of a perfect competitive market, however, suggesting that customer wants cause problems -- in some cases, customers actually want bundles from a single provider, and may actually prefer non-end-to-end Internet access. From an economist's point of view, end-to-end is only a means to an end. The end in this case is creating value for the customer. If that involves end-to-end Internet access, fine. If it doesn't, still fine. The value to the customer is paramount, engineering elegance is secondary.

Duvall also suggested that many observers have a naive view of regulation. With regard to the debate over open access to cable systems, he stated that there was no easy way for regulators to "come in and fix it." Regulation implies overcoming the resistance of entrenched players, and in the case of open access to cable systems, AT&T and other cable giants have proven adept at fighting lawsuits in support of their ability to keep their systems closed.

As we've seen previously, there was discussion of the reasons why end-to-end can be violated: sometimes customers want it, but (probably more often) the wants of companies are the driving force. Duvall suggested the external value of end-to-end in fostering competition and democratic values isn't adequately valued in most considerations of the economics of broadband. That is, the cost of violating end-to-end is spread out among many users of the network, but the benefits from that action accrue mainly to individual companies -- in economic parlance, this is called externalizing costs.

Another panelist emphasized the democratic value of open systems, a recurring topic in Lessig's writings. There was a bit more discussion of bundling-as-an-aid-for-novice-users vs. bundling-as-a-way-to-lock-in-customers. Jerome Saltzer reiterated the time-tested solution for monopoly problems: separate the content from the content-carriers. Deborah Lathen, acting perhaps as devil's advocate, asked why the builder of the pipe shouldn't be allowed to monopolize it. Duvall noted that no matter what the FCC might do to regulate cable carriers, that economic theory doesn't hold much chance for relief -- any time there's a monopoly (over the cable pipe), the monopolist is going to be able to extract monopoly rents, one way or another. If regulation affects a certain aspects of the business, the monopolist will find some other way to leverage the monopoly for greater profits. The only sure remedy is eliminating the monopoly.

Further audience discussion raised the idea that the concept of "an ISP" is a odd sort of legacy brought about by the necessity to have an intermediary between the telephone network and the TCP/IP network. In the future, the concept of an ISP may change radically. A question was asked: what benefit does the public get by allowing the cable companies to monopolize access? There were no good answers.

Mark Laubach gave a good overview of the architecture of cable Internet access, referring to the DOCSIS standard, which wasn't designed with open access in mind. Laubach stated that "basic IP dialtone" -- that is, a simple TCP/IP Internet connection without frills or bundled services -- should be a consumer right, which should apply to every broadband service regardless of delivery method: cable, DSL, wireless or satellite services.

Peter Huber summarized the open-access debate as it affected phone companies. The phone companies had a 1Mhz twisted pair of copper strands that they swore up and down couldn't be shared. They were ordered to share it, and now are doing so: local and long-distance competition, shared data/voice over that tiny line, co-location at central offices, etc. Now the cable companies have a 750mhz copper wire that they claim is "impossible" to share. Huber emphasized that whatever the regulations, cable and phone companies should be treated equally. Currently there are disjointed regulations, which (depending on your viewpoint) either unduly hamper phone companies or leave cable companies unfairly unrestricted.

Further discussion brought out the case of Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm and certain other cities have taken on the job of laying fiber-optic cable as a municipal service, similar to sewer service or water or roads. Since the municipality built the pipe to the home, there is no issue of a company attempting to monopolize the pipe, and any company which wants to offer Internet service over the pipe may do so. As a result, Stockholm residents are getting extremely fast access speeds at prices less than U.S. residents pay for cable Internet access, and customers don't have to worry about the cable monopoly steadily reducing their upstream speeds, or banning servers, or whatever other crackdown U.S. cable providers have thought of most recently. The panel then debated whether (and how) it would make sense to move the U.S. to that sort of municipal model. A panelist threw out the figure that true open access to cable pipes might require a choice of 400 ISPs. An audience member suggested that as things are currently going in the U.S., there might be a choice of five ISPs at most, hand-picked by the cable provider.

David Clark added that whatever solution is proposed, it must be an ongoing process -- since cable Internet access is certainly not going to be the final stage of bandwidth development. Finally the broadband session closed with a pithy statement that, despite claims to the contrary, content is not king -- there is, and always has been, more money in individuals talking to each other than in one-way content distribution. The question that remains is how to convince broadband providers that there is more money to be made in selling large quantities of low-profit services rather than small quantities of more profitable ones.

The day concluded with a session about wireless Internet access. Unsurprisingly, WAP was the first topic to come up: a closed, end-to-end-unfriendly, expensive protocol that is all but deceased in the market, yet still actively promoted by companies that hope to benefit from controlling wireless Internet access.

Karl Auerbach had an insightful comment about why to use plain vanilla TCP/IP instead of a bespoke wireless protocol. Similar to the argument raised by Bruce Schneier and others that using a proven crypto algorithm makes sense because there are a lot of bad protocol writers in the world, Auerbach posited that freely available TCP/IP stacks have had the bugs beaten out of them, but the average proprietary protocol hasn't. The topic shifted to the location information that is now required to be built in to mobile phones. The panel discussed the control issues inherent in different network architectures: location information could be built into the phone, and controlled by the user, or it could be built into the cell towers, and controlled by the phone company (or law enforcement, or advertisers). It looks like the second architecture will be the one that is deployed.

Yochai Benkler brought up the issue of spread spectrum changing the rules for FCC frequency allocation -- more communications may shift to frequencies where the FCC does not require licenses to broadcast. Dewayne Hendricks gave a lengthy and interesting description of how amateur radio is currently being used in a manner similar to the venerable Fidonet to pass packet data over the short-wave frequencies via a store-and-forward system. The interesting part is that Amateur Packet Radio has been around for 15 years or so. Hendricks' concept was that the first truly free network would be one composed of independent wireless spread-spectrum devices creating an ad hoc network which could not be censored or controlled by any entity whatsoever. One audience member quipped that disruptive technologies always appear to incumbents as toys.

Hendricks noted some other wireless WANs, such as one in the San Francisco Bay area using Breezecom wireless cards and antennae. (Coincidentally, Salon did a story on wireless WANs just a few days ago.) Dale Hatfield noted that Hendricks' network could be created today using licensed spectrum, and noted that the greatest danger is incumbent spectrum-holders pushing regulations which protect their investments by making it difficult for the FCC to open up or use sections of the spectrum for these innovative uses.

Towards the end, one member of the audience (and I do apologize for not catching who it was), pulled everything together by noting the convergence between end-to-end as a technological issue, open access as an economic issue, and democracy and public debate as a political issue. The idea of eliminating "gatekeepers" on the internet is important for a great many reasons, whether you look at it as a technological issue of promoting progress and innovation, or as an economic issue of fostering competition and preventing monopolies from abusing their power, or as an issue of promoting free and unrestrained speech on the communications media of the 21st century. This is certainly one of the most important issues facing the country today, but relatively few people know anything -- even a smidgeon -- about it, or at most they've read a few news reports about the AOL/Time Warner merger. I'm glad to see such a diverse and intelligent group working on the issues, and if they don't yet have all the answers, it's only because they want to get it right.

Stanford University held a workshop last Friday - The Policy Implications of End-to-End - covering some of the policy questions cropping up which threaten the end-to-end paradigm that serves today's Internet so well. It was attended by representatives from the FCC, along with technologists, economists, lawyers and others. Here are my notes from the workshop. I'm going to try to skip describing each individual's background and resume, instead substituting a link to a biography page whenever I can. (Part two of two - part one ran yesterday.)

The final segment of the morning covered caching. The main issue centered around transparent caching, where users ask for certain content but their request is silently fulfilled by a caching proxy server instead, generally without the user having any way to detect this. The standard concept of caching has the user being presented with the same content she would otherwise have gotten from the requested site, but that need not be true - Singapore, China and Australia have all used transparent caches to censor their citizens. This can also be a security violation (are you really talking to the secure server on stupidpettoys.com, or a proxy in between? Most users won't notice the difference.). Ann Brick noted a subsidiary issue - big commercial players have the ability to pay for their sites to be cached, while individuals do not. Similar to the QoS issue, this might be used to discriminate between paying, fast, commercial sites, and sites owned by individuals or even competitors.

David Clark made the insightful observation that dollars spent on caching don't go to general network improvements -- one small piece of the network is improved by caches, but the same money spent improving the whole network could improve it for everyone. Timothy Denton concluded this segment with the characterization of transparent caching as the difference between "form follows function" and "function follows form": the mere presence of caching and the ability to interfere with content delivery in the middle of the network destroys end-to-end and creates opportunities for mischief.

In the afternoon, there were two larger sessions covering broadband and wireless Internet access. In both areas, the companies controlling these access methods have strong motivations to violate end-to-end principles.

Jerry Duvall led the broadband discussion. He presented a rather fascinating economists' view of the situation -- an economists' world being solely concerned with customers, producers and markets. Laws are necessary to enable markets -- contract law, commercial law, fraud law, and so on are needed in order for markets to function. He summoned up the ghost of Adam Smith with a brief review of capitalism: producers always conspire against the public to get more profits from them, only competition keeps them in check. Marketing, lock-in, monopolization, and predatory pricing are always used by producers. He denied that end-to-end represented any sort of a perfect competitive market, however, suggesting that customer wants cause problems -- in some cases, customers actually want bundles from a single provider, and may actually prefer non-end-to-end Internet access. From an economist's point of view, end-to-end is only a means to an end. The end in this case is creating value for the customer. If that involves end-to-end Internet access, fine. If it doesn't, still fine. The value to the customer is paramount, engineering elegance is secondary.

Duvall also suggested that many observers have a naive view of regulation. With regard to the debate over open access to cable systems, he stated that there was no easy way for regulators to "come in and fix it." Regulation implies overcoming the resistance of entrenched players, and in the case of open access to cable systems, AT&T and other cable giants have proven adept at fighting lawsuits in support of their ability to keep their systems closed.

As we've seen previously, there was discussion of the reasons why end-to-end can be violated: sometimes customers want it, but (probably more often) the wants of companies are the driving force. Duvall suggested the external value of end-to-end in fostering competition and democratic values isn't adequately valued in most considerations of the economics of broadband. That is, the cost of violating end-to-end is spread out among many users of the network, but the benefits from that action accrue mainly to individual companies -- in economic parlance, this is called externalizing costs.

Another panelist emphasized the democratic value of open systems, a recurring topic in Lessig's writings. There was a bit more discussion of bundling-as-an-aid-for-novice-users vs. bundling-as-a-way-to-lock-in-customers. Jerome Saltzer reiterated the time-tested solution for monopoly problems: separate the content from the content-carriers. Deborah Lathen, acting perhaps as devil's advocate, asked why the builder of the pipe shouldn't be allowed to monopolize it. Duvall noted that no matter what the FCC might do to regulate cable carriers, that economic theory doesn't hold much chance for relief -- any time there's a monopoly (over the cable pipe), the monopolist is going to be able to extract monopoly rents, one way or another. If regulation affects a certain aspects of the business, the monopolist will find some other way to leverage the monopoly for greater profits. The only sure remedy is eliminating the monopoly.

Further audience discussion raised the idea that the concept of "an ISP" is a odd sort of legacy brought about by the necessity to have an intermediary between the telephone network and the TCP/IP network. In the future, the concept of an ISP may change radically. A question was asked: what benefit does the public get by allowing the cable companies to monopolize access? There were no good answers.

Mark Laubach gave a good overview of the architecture of cable Internet access, referring to the DOCSIS standard, which wasn't designed with open access in mind. Laubach stated that "basic IP dialtone" -- that is, a simple TCP/IP Internet connection without frills or bundled services -- should be a consumer right, which should apply to every broadband service regardless of delivery method: cable, DSL, wireless or satellite services.

Peter Huber summarized the open-access debate as it affected phone companies. The phone companies had a 1Mhz twisted pair of copper strands that they swore up and down couldn't be shared. They were ordered to share it, and now are doing so: local and long-distance competition, shared data/voice over that tiny line, co-location at central offices, etc. Now the cable companies have a 750mhz copper wire that they claim is "impossible" to share. Huber emphasized that whatever the regulations, cable and phone companies should be treated equally. Currently there are disjointed regulations, which (depending on your viewpoint) either unduly hamper phone companies or leave cable companies unfairly unrestricted.

Further discussion brought out the case of Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm and certain other cities have taken on the job of laying fiber-optic cable as a municipal service, similar to sewer service or water or roads. Since the municipality built the pipe to the home, there is no issue of a company attempting to monopolize the pipe, and any company which wants to offer Internet service over the pipe may do so. As a result, Stockholm residents are getting extremely fast access speeds at prices less than U.S. residents pay for cable Internet access, and customers don't have to worry about the cable monopoly steadily reducing their upstream speeds, or banning servers, or whatever other crackdown U.S. cable providers have thought of most recently. The panel then debated whether (and how) it would make sense to move the U.S. to that sort of municipal model. A panelist threw out the figure that true open access to cable pipes might require a choice of 400 ISPs. An audience member suggested that as things are currently going in the U.S., there might be a choice of five ISPs at most, hand-picked by the cable provider.

David Clark added that whatever solution is proposed, it must be an ongoing process -- since cable Internet access is certainly not going to be the final stage of bandwidth development. Finally the broadband session closed with a pithy statement that, despite claims to the contrary, content is not king -- there is, and always has been, more money in individuals talking to each other than in one-way content distribution. The question that remains is how to convince broadband providers that there is more money to be made in selling large quantities of low-profit services rather than small quantities of more profitable ones.

The day concluded with a session about wireless Internet access. Unsurprisingly, WAP was the first topic to come up: a closed, end-to-end-unfriendly, expensive protocol that is all but deceased in the market, yet still actively promoted by companies that hope to benefit from controlling wireless Internet access.

Karl Auerbach had an insightful comment about why to use plain vanilla TCP/IP instead of a bespoke wireless protocol. Similar to the argument raised by Bruce Schneier and others that using a proven crypto algorithm makes sense because there are a lot of bad protocol writers in the world, Auerbach posited that freely available TCP/IP stacks have had the bugs beaten out of them, but the average proprietary protocol hasn't. The topic shifted to the location information that is now required to be built in to mobile phones. The panel discussed the control issues inherent in different network architectures: location information could be built into the phone, and controlled by the user, or it could be built into the cell towers, and controlled by the phone company (or law enforcement, or advertisers). It looks like the second architecture will be the one that is deployed.

Yochai Benkler brought up the issue of spread spectrum changing the rules for FCC frequency allocation -- more communications may shift to frequencies where the FCC does not require licenses to broadcast. Dewayne Hendricks gave a lengthy and interesting description of how amateur radio is currently being used in a manner similar to the venerable Fidonet to pass packet data over the short-wave frequencies via a store-and-forward system. The interesting part is that Amateur Packet Radio has been around for 15 years or so. Hendricks' concept was that the first truly free network would be one composed of independent wireless spread-spectrum devices creating an ad hoc network which could not be censored or controlled by any entity whatsoever. One audience member quipped that disruptive technologies always appear to incumbents as toys.

Hendricks noted some other wireless WANs, such as one in the San Francisco Bay area using Breezecom wireless cards and antennae. (Coincidentally, Salon did a story on wireless WANs just a few days ago.) Dale Hatfield noted that Hendricks' network could be created today using licensed spectrum, and noted that the greatest danger is incumbent spectrum-holders pushing regulations which protect their investments by making it difficult for the FCC to open up or use sections of the spectrum for these innovative uses.

Towards the end, one member of the audience (and I do apologize for not catching who it was), pulled everything together by noting the convergence between end-to-end as a technological issue, open access as an economic issue, and democracy and public debate as a political issue. The idea of eliminating "gatekeepers" on the internet is important for a great many reasons, whether you look at it as a technological issue of promoting progress and innovation, or as an economic issue of fostering competition and preventing monopolies from abusing their power, or as an issue of promoting free and unrestrained speech on the communications media of the 21st century. This is certainly one of the most important issues facing the country today, but relatively few people know anything -- even a smidgeon -- about it, or at most they've read a few news reports about the AOL/Time Warner merger. I'm glad to see such a diverse and intelligent group working on the issues, and if they don't yet have all the answers, it's only because they want to get it right.

Stanford University held a workshop last Friday - The Policy Implications of End-to-End - covering some of the policy questions cropping up which threaten the end-to-end paradigm that serves today's Internet so well. It was attended by representatives from the FCC, along with technologists, economists, lawyers and others. Here are my notes from the workshop. I'm going to try to skip describing each individual's background and resume, instead substituting a link to a biography page whenever I can. (Part one of two.)

The summary provided by the conference organizers has a brief description of end-to-end:

"The "end-to-end argument" was proposed by network architects Jerome Saltzer, David Reed and David Clark in 1981 as a principle for allocating intelligence within a large scale computer network. It has since become a central principle of the Internet's design. End-to-end [e2e] counsels that "intelligence" in a network should be placed at its ends -- in applications -- while the network itself should remain as simple as is feasible, given the broad range of applications that the network might support."

Another way to view end-to-end might be as a sort of network non-interference policy: all bits are created equal. The problem is that there are substantial economic incentives to treat bits differently, and these incentives are changing the architecture of the Internet in ways which may be detrimental to public values.

The workshop covered a number of areas:

• Voice over IP
• Network Security
• Quality of Service
• Content Caching
• Broadband
• Wireless

Jerome Saltzer started off with a technical overview of the end-to-end argument. In summary: digital technology builds systems of stunning complexity, and the way to manage this complexity is to modularize. For networking, this resulted in the layer model that many slashdot readers are familiar with. He suggested that designers should be wary of putting specific functions in lower layers, since all layers above must deal with that design decision. For a longer explanation, one can always read the original paper. If you've never heard of end-to-end before, I do suggest reading this paper before continuing. It's short.

First, Scott Bradner described two competing architectures for voice-over-IP protocols: one which employs central servers to direct and manage calls (the Media Gateway Control model, or Megaco), and one which puts most of the intelligence in the end-points, with the phones/computers originating the calls (the Session Initiation Protocol, or SIP). One important difference: SIP phones can use a central server to direct calls, but Megaco phones have no capability to act independently. Building a great deal of intelligence into the central servers is less end-to-end-compliant than building it into phones at the edges of the network.

One member of the audience pointed out that Federal law requires companies to build wiretapping capabilities into phone switches and wireless network equipment, and wondered how that would be implemented if the phones initiated the connections themselves (SIP). Traditional wiretapping is predicated upon the idea that there is a central server which all communications pass through. The panel candidly replied that when no central server is used and encryption is employed, wiretapping is difficult. One audience member pointed out that wiretapping at centralized switches is not the most effective way to do it, anyway -- since switches can be routed around and communications can be encrypted, the only truly effective way to wiretap would be to build tapping capabilities all the way at the edge of the network -- the phone itself. While some of the audience laughed, I think most of the participants also realized the dark undertones of this suggestion.

Next the discussion turned to innovation. In one model, the central servers would be controlled by companies with a vested interest in managing them conservatively, suppressing competition, etc. In the other, individuals would be able to create/control their own phones on the perimeter of the network, and the only barrier to innovation would be finding someone else to adopt your improvement as well so that the two of you could communicate. In the first model, innovations which benefited the company would be the only ones permitted. In the second one, any innovation which benefited the end-user would be possible.

Finally the discussion moved to a rarely thought about side effect of voice over IP. Universal service -- phone service to (nearly) every resident of the United States -- is funded through access charges on your phone bill. In effect, people in cheap-to-service areas are subsidizing those in expensive-to-service areas, ranging from the badlands of Nevada to wilderness areas of Alaska. From a societal point of view, ubiquitous access to telephones has been a great boon, but providing it requires a societal commitment -- otherwise people living outside of major population centers might never have phone service. Suppose now that traditional telephony is replaced by voice over IP, and no central servers are involved -- there would be no easy way to collect the access charges which subsidize outlying areas. While lowering such taxes may have widespread appeal, completely abandoning the commitment to universal service would be a great loss to society.

The next focus was network security. Firewalls are probably the most obvious breaks in the end-to-end paradigm -- after all, these devices' sole purpose is to stand in the way of network connections, and decide which are permitted and which are not. Participants brought up (but thankfully, quickly moved past) the true-but-useless point that if all operating systems were secured properly, there would be no need for firewalls.

Hans Kruse pointed out that if security must be implemented at the end anyway -- as it must if any incoming traffic is permitted through the firewall -- then there's no reason to do it at the center as well. David Clark put forth the useful distinction between mandatory and discretionary access controls -- mandatory controls being ones put into place by someone else, discretionary ones put into place by you. Discretionary controls do not violate end-to-end, but mandatory ones generally do. Michael Kleeman noted that the reasons firewalls are put into place include the desire to control the actions of users inside the firewall as often as the desire to control access from outside.

Doug Van Houweling spoke regarding Network Address Translation (NAT). NAT allows two networks to be joined together, and is typically used to join a network of machines with non-routable IP addresses to the global internet. NAT is an outgrowth of the limited availability of IPv4 addresses, but is also employed in some cases as a poor man's security measure. Generally, Houweling described NAT as an affront to end-to-end, because any application which requires transparency of addresses breaks, making end-to-end encryption impossible. Added to which, applications sometimes transmit data in the TCP/IP headers which NAT alters. The group noted that NAT can be eliminated simply by putting more addresses into circulation. Later in the workshop, Andrew McLaughlin talked about the address allocation process for IPv6 and said that it is shaping up to be much better than that for IPv4.

The workshop moved on next to Quality of Service. QoS in this case covers a wide range of proposals (and a few working implementations) for selectively speeding up or slowing down network traffic -- a sort of nice for network data flows. The "benign" use of QoS is to ensure that traffic which is strongly time-sensitive like videoconferencing or telephony gets priority over the download of NT Service Pack 16. There are less-benign uses: Cisco's 1999 White Paper which encouraged cable Internet operators to use Cisco's QoS features to speed up access to proprietary (read: profitable) content while slowing down content from competitors was the red flag in the QoS realm, raising concerns about the role of ISPs in traffic delivery and abuses by telecom carriers which are also content providers.

This segment started with an overview of QoS. There are several ways to implement QoS on a network. The simplest is to build a network with a capacity great enough to never be maxed out; if the network has sufficient bandwidth, there's no need to worry about QoS in the first place. There are costs, though, to maintain sufficient excess capacity on the network. This is called "adequate provisioning" if it is your preferred method of managing traffic, or "over-provisioning" if you prefer one of the other QoS approaches. The other ways under consideration are an integrated service architecture and a differentiated service architecture. The former would monitor and track each individual data flow -- the call you place to your mother in Singapore could be treated differently from the call you place to your grandmother in Kracow. The latter would only allow differentiation between classes of services -- all videoconferencing would be treated similarly, for example. Of the three, adequate provisioning is fully end-to-end while DiffServ is less so, and IntServ is highly non-compliant.

Jerome Saltzer (from the audience) made the point that no QoS technique provides real guarantees of service, and any technique except having plenty of excess bandwidth available violates the principles of end-to-end. He emphasized that people should be aware of the trade-offs.

Jamie Love mentioned not only the Cisco white paper but pointed out that this situation lent itself to behavior like that which has landed Microsoft in hot water -- using one's control of a particular system to speed up one's own content and impede competitors' from flowing. A member of the audience countered QoS would allow companies to create different levels of service -- pay more for fast access, less for slow access -- and that this was a good thing.

There were two distinct classes of problems identified. The first is similar to the distinction among methods for carrying voice over IP: the companies that control the QoS-enabled servers get to control who gets to innovate in QoS-related areas. The second, related problem is that of carriers using QoS features to promote their own content. The second problem has traditionally been solved by requiring a separation of carriage and content -- keeping the owner of the lines and the provider of content over those lines separate. The current FCC and FTC are not enforcing that traditional check against monopolization of content in telecommunications; thus it's likely that unless governmental policies change, AOL/Time Warner will be a position to promote its own content through control of the cable Internet services it owns.

Doug Van Houweling then spoke and noted that the Internet2 project is taking a very strong stance promoting QoS, because that stance is seen as necessary to promote investment in Internet2 architecture.

An audience member spoke up and suggested that the best regulatory course would be regulation with a light touch -- regulation could provide the minimum necessary controls to provide really necessary QoS while disallowing abusive uses. At this point Deborah Lathen asked the $64,000 question: how would the FCC make this fine regulatory distinction? No one had a good answer to that question.

In Part two tomorrow: transparent caching, broadband and wireless access, and capitalism.

Carnage4Life writes "The FCC is beginning to get impatient with the cable TV industry and television manufacturers for not getting digital TV out to consumers more quickly. In an interesting speech delivered at the CES on Friday the FCC chairman explains that the FCC is reluctant to dictate standards to the industry but will do so if no consensus on standards is reached by April."

Randy Rathbun writes "In a very bold (and IMHO, much needed) move, the FCC today released major changes to Part 97, which is the rules for the Amateur Radio Service. Among the changes are that there is only a 5 word per minute morse code exam from now on (getting rid of the 13 and 20 wpm exams), and reducing the number of license classes from six to three. The text of the changes can be read in this PDF document. You don't need to know morse code to get on the air on bands above 30 MHz, btw."

DaPhreaker writes "As reported by The Industry Standard in this article. The F.C.C has decided to take a hands off approach on the broadband market. " While I would advocate opening the lines up, I think the FCC may have adopted the best position for the next six months - let things sort themselves out more, especially in light of the rising battle between DSL and cable.

V for Victory writes "Would you like to run your very own over-the-air radio station with a real, legal license to broadcast? The FCC is currently considering a plan to license low power FM band broadcasters with 10, 100, or 1000 watt power ratings. Naturally, this proposal is being opposed by Big Radio Companies and the National Association of Broadcasters. However, at the moment the FCC is accepting comments from the public. Read more about it here. The deadline for comments is September 1, 1999. "

V for Victory writes "Would you like to run your very own over-the-air radio station with a real, legal license to broadcast? The FCC is currently considering a plan to license low power FM band broadcasters with 10, 100, or 1000 watt power ratings. Naturally, this proposal is being opposed by Big Radio Companies and the National Association of Broadcasters. However, at the moment the FCC is accepting comments from the public. Read more about it here. The deadline for comments is September 1, 1999. "

Well, some news comes out of the rumour mill today. The FCC which is already a month past its' one month deadline for decision, may be close to ruling that local calls to ISPs count as long-distance calls.

The FCC has decided that they will be cutting school net funding by around 43%. This questionable move came after intense pressure in Congress, and partially because the telcos promised to raise rates to pay their share of it, something that the FCC dearly wants to avoid. I dunno-maybe it's just me, but trying to put net access in schools to help create more wired kids-the whole decision to do it, and do it right seems like a no-brainer.