Cisco on Canada Net throttling dispute
p2pnet news | Freedom:- Cisco Systems is using the growing Net Throttling controversy in Canada to once again try to spin net neutrality as detrimental to both business and consumer interests.
“As the internet becomes better, faster and more integral to our economy and personal lives, it is necessary for broadband internet access providers to use innovative technology to manage their networks in providing quality of service, new features, and new services to meet evolving consumer needs. There are legitimate reasons for use of network management tools by internet access providers to improve the internet experience as long as there is no anti-competitive effect.”
That’s Morgan Elliott (right), Cisco’s Ottawa-based executive director, global policy and government affairs in a Hill Times letter.
It all looks so very reasonable —- “it is necessary for broadband internet access providers to use innovative technology to manage their networks in providing quality of service, new features, and new services to meet evolving consumer needs”.
But the “innovative technology” quoted by Elliott means, principally, traffic shaping, aka ‘bandwidth throttling’ and ‘traffic management’ which, the likes of Cisco claim, is absolutely vital as more and more people go online, demand for speed slyrockets and providers struggle valiantly to answer the burgeoning needs of the surfing masses.
Thus, “Imposing specific network neutrality rules now to address hypothetical problems would only compound the problem,” says Elliott. “Rather, the federal government and the CRTC have taken the appropriate path by not over-regulating the internet.”
Not over regulating it means giving the corporations carte blanche, and by “hypothetical problems,” Elliott presumably means legitimate consumer outrage at the way in which Canada’s three largest ISPs, Bell Canada, Rogers and Videotron, with Bell in the lead, are blatantly shackling bandwidth.
Criticising NDP spokeman Charlie Angus’ attack on Bell Canada, “Many of the internet’s benefits come from its open nature and the ability of anyone to develop new and innovative devices and services that connect to it,” says Elliott.
“Such innovation has created entirely new industries and has fostered competitive markets in internet applications and equipment,” he declares, going on >>>
It is ironic that pro-regulation net neutralists who advocate an open and unfettered internet are the ones calling for government intervention and regulation to spur development. The rapid evolution of the internet has turned traditional business models on their heads with consumers’ now driving innovation.
But with the explosive growth of the internet and the ongoing expansion of networks to meet demand, service providers should remain free to engage in pro-competitive network management techniques to alleviate congestion, ameliorate capacity constraints, and enable new services.
Per Mr. Angus’ claim, the FCC did step into this issue in 2005 to outline its connectivity principles policy statement (not regulation) for an open internet. I concur with Mr. Angus’ inference that this could be a model Canada follows. It stipulates that consumers should have access to their choice of legal internet content within the bandwidth limits and quality of service of their service plan; the ability to run applications of their choice, so long as they do not harm the provider’s network; be permitted to attach any devices they choose; and finally, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Service providers should, Elliott states, “remain free to offer additional services to supplement broadband internet access, including bandwidth tiers, quality of service, security, anti-virus and anti-spam services, network management services, as well as to enter into commercially negotiated agreements with unaffiliated parties for the provision of such additional services. At the same time, consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their internet service plans.”
Meanwhile, US providers, with Comcast to the fore, are facing identical problems as they, too try to ’shape’ traffic to meet their business plans.
Says Dave Burstein in Circle ID >>>
There are a pile of very well paid lobbyists, pr types, D.C. “policy” experts, and others essentially without facts approaching any reporter and crying that the Internet is facing a crisis and slowing down.
A lobbying budget of $millions produces so much noise many honest people get confused, especially reporters who aren’t technologists.
The top folks for the telcos in D.C. are paid literally $2M a year; for that money, you should be able to get “spokesmen” able to convince many that 2+2=5.
They follow with a claim that telcos needs higher profits, less regulation, and almost everything else they want as an “incentive.”
But —-
I can think of at least 25 senior technologists, including CTOs of the world’s largest networks and distinguished professors, who are pretty clear they don’t expect major problems.
Earlier, “Net traffic per user, as documented by Odlyzko and Cisco, has been growing at about 35-40% the last five years, and that growth rate is flat and possibly down the last two years,” says Burstein.
“The net has been able to handle the increase without price increases, much less overload, because the primary and rate limiting equipment (switches, routers, WDM, etc.) have simultaneously been going down at a similar 35-40%.
“Moore’s Law is bringing costs down and capacity up at a remarkable rate.”
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Cisco are simply pandering to self-interests.
Bell have designs on internet services they’re uncomfortable with revealing.
It’s shaping alright, though not just traffic, but the entire market.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Cisco has vested interest in throttling since they make the boxes that do it.
Its kind of like the cigarette manufacturer saying the filter on the end of the cigarette is innovative and reduces cancer so smoke more.