Tech journalist Jason Miller is all upset about efforts to build better broadband. He thinks a new service offering by Shaw Cable in Canada is proof that Net Neutrality regulations are necessary. Here’s the Shaw announcement on Quality of Service:
Shaw is now able to offer its High Speed Internet customers the opportunity to improve the quality of Internet telephony services offered by third party providers. For an additional $10 per month Shaw will provide a quality of service (QoS) feature that will enhance these services when used over the Shaw High Speed Internet network. Without this service customers may encounter quality of service issues with their voice over Internet service.
Is this the End of the Internet as We Know It? Not really, it’s exactly the sort of thing that Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee says is legitimate:
We pay for connection to the Net as though it were a cloud which magically delivers our packets. We may pay for a higher or a lower quality of service. We may pay for a service which has the characteristics of being good for video, or quality audio.
So who are going to believe, a journalist with an ax to grind or the Father of the Web? Dude, that’s not even a close call.
Miller also claims, falsely, that Shaw offers its own VoIP. Actually, they offer the same kind of triple-play that American cable franchises offer, and it’s nothing to do with IP.
UPDATE: Go see Save the Internet try and spin this story to their advantage. It’s not enough that they were caught lying about Craig’s List, now they want to make the feeble-minded believe a legitimate service upgrade is going to kill the Internet.
Did you miss the final paragraphcs of the Tim Berners-Lee piece you linked to:
Have you changed your position on net neutrality?
I had a long discussion with Tim on his blog about the issue, and we both agree that there’s nothing wrong with voice-grade QoS for an extra fee.
My position on net neutrality is very simple: it’s a fiction.
Read the comments on Tim’s blog for the reasoning.
You quote a source to whom you said:
“You make a number of claims that are either misleading or simply wrong, so I’d like to point some of them out and show you where your analysis of the “neutrality” concept breaks down.”
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132#comment-6846
You have no credibility at this point.
But that isn’t what Shaw is offering. They’re offering QoS for voice services for an extra fee, unless its their own “digital phone” service, for which the QoS is free.
Perhaps you’re missing this crucial element. Could it be what makes you think SaveTheInternet is trying to “spin” this story. Its addressed in the Snowe bill here (of course it wouldn’t apply to Shaw as a Canadian company):
You’ve got the facts wrong, again. Shaw’s own phone service is in a different frequency band than their Internet access; it uses an isochronous protocol that’s QoS by definition.
The VoIP upgrade is a legitimate service option, of the kind that rational people judge legitimate.
I oppose Snowe’s bill.
The Snowe bill defines communications as:
So, my read is that they would be required to either offer QoS for free to VoIP competitors, or institute a similar charge for their digital phone service if it were offered bundled with TCP/IP with an internet gateway.
Can we tone down the namecalling? This is a serious issue and it deserves respectful discussion.
Yes, I think your reading of Snowe-Dorgan is correct, and that’s why I oppose it. I have no problem with an ISP selling QoS for a fee, whether they have a competing service or not.
QoS is a legitimate service upgrade, and Shaw’s phone service doesn’t interfere with anybody’s web surfing.
BTW, I have no credibilty. I agree with Tim on some points and disagree on others, so that makes me a bad person.
Be advised.
Having phone service with your ISP is by definition advantageous. The IP portion of the call has minimum hop count. If they choose to bundle the voice service over the same frequency or not, that is their choice and a function of scale. So long as they’re not degrading the competitors to less than normal, what’s the problem? It works just the same as before no better no worse. If you’re going to an Internet based provider, your VoIP packets have to go outside of your ISP’s network and I’m not sure if they can provide QoS anyways. Truth of the matter is, you could probably just get away with implementing QoS for outbound VoIP traffic on your own router/gateway. That’s where most of the problems occur since outbound throughput stinks on most broadband pipes. Your own gateway is the biggest choke point and you get to control outbound priority leaving your house which is the most important thing to do anyways.
It’s a good idea to be certain you’re sourcing the correct person. The article you’ve cited that illustrates my “reputation for sensationalism” isn’t one of mine. The picture on the column should tip you off.
Here’s what I look like:
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060620CanadianISPANetNeutralitySmokingGun.html
Actually, some say I’m not as handsome as my picture. Guess that makes me a liar of some kind.
Unfortunately, my parents weren’t as original as they thought they were. Turns out the name “Jason” was extremely popular in the seventies and “Miller,” well, I might as well be named Smith or Jones. That’s why I go by my full name, to avoid confusion.
Seems I’ve rubbed you the wrong way. But there’s no need for condescention and name-calling, especially when you’re not sure which name to use.
QoS is almost always seen in regards to Intranet (or On net ISP) traffic. Internet QoS mechanisms, and generally anything RSVP have some scalability hurdles to overcome before it will function correctly on the Internet.
So you have obvious technical issues, and that doesn’t even count the managment issues involved in inter provider QoS.
I applaud Shaw cable for creating a service offering that gives their voice/voip competitors the ability to have a properly performing service on their network. I’m not exactly sure how they do it efficiently, since identifying the packets from all those third party providers might be a man-power intenstive activity.
I can only imagine that there must be more competition in the broadband market in that particular area of Canada, and they have found a way that they can differentiate their broadband service from their competitors. They will have to differentiate their VoIP service from third party VoIP carriers as well; it will have to compete on its own merits. This is a good thing as well.
Sorry Max, but RSVP has nothing to do with QoS. You’re thinking of MPLS, not QoS.
Interprovider QoS is possible to do today with relatively trivial translation tables applied to the network borders between carriers. Assuming that all major carriers supported QoS on the equipment that runs their Internet service (some of the older routers or linecards require upgrades), it would be a simple matter of turning it on from a technical perspective. There are no scaling concerns because there are no signalling aspects. The routers simply place packets into a queue based on the ToS bit value in the IP header.
It’s not enabled today because there is no business reason to turn it on. If more broadband companies go the route of Shaw Cable, that situation might change though.
Really? That’s not what the RFC’s 2205 – 2210 etc. say. And do remember that Diffserv evolved from Intserv and that the components of each can be used together to provide End to End QoS.
Diffserv doesn’t provide End to End Qos, it only provides per hop scheduling. It wasn’t designed to provide the sort of End to End Qos necessary for guaranteed delivery., It’s more a bandaid for congested links. You still need signalling for that.
End to End QoS only exists “On net”, today. You’re lying if you say otherwise.
You obviously don’t have a lot of experience with Internet Exchanges or peering based on that statement. It’s not as simple as you think. At this level, packet queuing doesn’t give you much of a benefit compared to Routing Policy, which all carriers would need to agree on anyway, and usually that costs $ unless you’re tier one.
It is enabled today for business reasons, it’s just hard to sell QoS without guarantees, and that’s only possible on net or if signalling protocols can reserve resources through the network.
Regards,
Max
David,
MPLS use RSVP-TE. RSVP can be used with any number of QoS mechanisms, including Diffserv.
Here’s an example of RSVP and Diffserv playing nice together, w/ No MPLS:)
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk766/technologies_white_paper09186a00800a3e2f.shtml
Regards,
Max
The current AS and exchange infastructure: mostly ain’t broke and don’t need fixing
Legislated monopolies held by last-mile providers: badly need to be replaced with legislated access (as seen in local telco “deregulation”) or complemented with a neutrality law specifically for them
And by the by, I’ll be really sad to see Shaw lose a case over a product that’s 100% vapourous.
Unbundling didn’t work, we don’t need to try that again, and the Shaw service works well by all accounts I’ve read.
Lots of things that “ain’t broke” can stand some improvement. That’s why have cell phones and electricity and stuff.
It’s called “progress”.