[1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ articleerrors.

Mon Dec 15 15:59:30 PST 2008

If the cust has l2 choice then they can get to both L2 and public / open L3 services

If the cust only has L3 then they are locked to the networks available via that L3 provider

I'd extend the model and say that L1 and L2 should be open. 

--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry

----- Original Message -----
From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>
To: 'John Osmon' <josmon at rigozsaurus.com>; 1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us <1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us>
Sent: Mon Dec 15 16:49:24 2008
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ articleerrors.

You raise an interesting issue - is Layer 2 or Layer 3 the right end-user
interface?

If the Layer 3 1st/last mile network is truly open, there is the prospect of
a wide range of innovative services (telemedicine, security, etc.)of which
the customer is free to select any that they choose.  If it is layer 2,
there may be a selection of ISPs, but the customer must select one or the
other.

This is very roughly analogous to the Cable "Package" versus "Ala Carte"
debate.

I would like to more thoroughly understand the issues and ramifications, but
right now I believe I favor a publically owned open Layer 3 network.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org
[mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Osmon
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:31 AM
To: 1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ
articleerrors.

We need to make sure people aren't fighting the wrong battle.  As long
as people fight for/against net neutrality, it distracts from the real
issue.

We need neutral first/last mile networks.  They should be layer-2
only, and consumers should be able to choose which ISP that layer-2
connections hits.  Qwest's original DSL model works this way, and
it was a boon to ISPs and consumers.

Once we have a plethora of ISPs to choose from, we can let each 
ISP do whatever prioritization/caching they want.  Since we're free to
switch between them, we can find one that matches our preferences.  

*IF* you assume that the last mile connection also defines your choice
in ISP, *THEN* network neutrality is an important argument.

Turn the argument around.  Fight for a framework where network
neutrality isn't a requirement.

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:17:25AM -0800, Richard Lowenberg wrote:
> Net neutrality and the benefits of caching
> 
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/
> 
> Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:14 AM
> Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
> 
> One of the first posts I wrote for this blog last summer tried to define
what we
> at Google mean when we talk about the concept of net neutrality.
> 
> Broadband providers -- the on-ramps to the Internet -- should not be
allowed to
> prioritize traffic based on the source, ownership or destination of the
> content. As I noted in that post, broadband providers should have the
> flexibility to employ network upgrades, such as edge caching. However,
they
> shouldn't be able to leverage their unilateral control over consumers'
> broadband connections to hamper user choice, competition, and innovation.
Our
> commitment to that principle of net neutrality remains as strong as ever.
> 
> Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through
edge
> caching -- temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that
are
> located close to end users -- violates the concept of network neutrality.
As I
> said last summer, this myth -- which unfortunately underlies a confused
story
> in Monday's Wall Street Journal -- is based on a misunderstanding of the
way in
> which the open Internet works.
> 
> Edge caching is a common practice used by ISPs and application and content
> providers in order to improve the end user experience. Companies like
Akamai,
> Limelight, and Amazon's Cloudfront provide local caching services, and
> broadband providers typically utilize caching as part of what are known as
> content distribution networks (CDNs). Google and many other Internet
companies
> also deploy servers of their own around the world.
> 
> By bringing YouTube videos and other content physically closer to end
users,
> site operators can improve page load times for videos and Web pages. In
> addition, these solutions help broadband providers by minimizing the need
to
> send traffic outside of their networks and reducing congestion on the
> Internet's backbones. In fact, caching represents one type of innovative
> network practice encouraged by the open Internet.
> 
> Google has offered to "colocate" caching servers within broadband
providers' own
> facilities; this reduces the provider's bandwidth costs since the same
video
> wouldn't have to be transmitted multiple times. We've always said that
> broadband providers can engage in activities like colocation and caching,
so
> long as they do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
> 
> All of Google's colocation agreements with ISPs -- which we've done
through
> projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache -- are non-exclusive,
meaning
> any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them
require
> (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than
other
> traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their
unilateral
> control over consumers' connections and offer colocation or caching
services in
> an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the
> innovation it enables.
> 
> Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story,
I
> want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly
committed
> to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with
> policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.
> 
> P.S.: The Journal story also quoted me as characterizing President-elect
Obama's
> net neutrality policies as "much less specific than they were before." For
what
> it's worth, I don't recall making such a comment, and it seems especially
odd
> given that President-elect Obama's supportive stance on network neutrality
> hasn't changed at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
_______________________________________________
1st-mile-nm mailing list
1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm

_______________________________________________
1st-mile-nm mailing list
1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/1st-mile-nm/attachments/20081215/5c502953/attachment.html>