RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: What the Heck?Great post (again) longhaul.
Someone will correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think Sandvine is hedged no matter which way the FCC rules. FCC has ok'd Comcast's network management and they're using SVC - I haven't heard any complaints coming out of Comcast since the change and it would seem Comcast is actually attempting to be more customer friendly and transparent than ever before. I think Caputo has often come out and said that SVC (and via implication, its competitors) can change policy at anytime to meet the legal and/or customer requirements. So no matter which way the FCC rules, I think SVC is safe. Currently, Comcast is using SVC's fairshare/protocol agnostic solution. In other words, during congestion, the heaviest users will be throttled back enough to ensure everyone else can get their 'fairshare' as well. This we know has been approved by the FCC.
In Canada, the CRTC has gone one step further. They're allowing the ISP's to 'discriminate' during congestion. In short, a Canadian ISP can slow down a user that's doing P2P during peak times to ensure someone who is streaming or gaming in real time gets their packets right away.
In the US, they're also fighting about this issue.
I like the Canadian approach. Why? It makes sense. But where net neutrality advocates have a point is where the ISP's are being stupid. For example, Bell used to throttle b/w 4-2am or something. However, Bell couldn't back up the claim the network was congested b/w those hours. In other words, it was arbitrary. SVC has already come out with a report stating peak congestion times are b/w 7-10pm (makes sense). Another example is when Bell unilaterally throttles all P2P whether there is congestion or not. No wonder the NN advocates are pissed off.
But the CRTC did get something right. ISP's must obtain approval from the CRTC before implementing any new congestion management scheme. Moreover, and what I think is key - they're allowing 'discrimination'. If I'm a P2P downloader, I could care less whether my packets are all coming right now vs. being slowed down somewhat so other real time applications and users get the packets they need immediately. Makes sense.
Caputo got this right a long time ago when he said all packets are not created equal. From a common sense perspective, I agree. If every packet is equal that means all packets, whether from someone surfing, watching an NHL game, playing a video game, P2P sharing, etc. will join the queue and will be sent/received accordingly. Common sense tells me that during congestion periods, all users will be impacted and specifically, those using real time applications. Once again, if I'm P2P sharing, will I notice I've been slowed down during congestion periods? Probably not so long as I'm not throttled big time which is what Comcast, Bell and others were doing.
So I don't think all packets are equal nor do we, as a society, want them to be treated as equal. Ultimately, and there are likely different ways of managing congestion, all I care about is that I get my packets WHEN I NEED THEM.
The problem of course is society not trusting ISP's and likely with very good reason based on past actions and behaviour. But ideally, ISP's are transparent, only 'discriminate' during congestion/peak periods and ensure we get the packets when we need them. Non-time sensitive applications are just that - non-time sensitive. These users will get all their packets eventually and ISP's must ensure these users get all their packets as soon as possible.
And I don't like the word 'discriminate'. Discriminate implies a negative connotation. It invokes an image of an ISP slighting a user. Instead, I like the word 'unequal preference'. Some packets will be given unequal preference over others but only during network congestion.
The other issue NN advocates feel strongly about is that ISP's may prefer their own content over those of competitors. For example, Rogers pushing their video content to that of a competitor or slowing down the packets when a user chooses a competitor. This is a legitimate issue and one the FCC must address. Don't think Rogers/Bell is preferring their own content over competitors yet but if they are/do, watch out b/c the CRTC will probably get involved. IMO, ISP's becoming content providers is fine so long as they don't target competitors.
So I think the FCC will get it right and follow Canada's lead. If not, SVC has its fairshare/protocol agnostic platform and probably other policy solutions. In other words, whatever the FCC concludes, I'm pretty sure SVC and its competitors will do fine but even more so where unequal preference is allowed. Time will tell.