[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering

On 3 jan 2008, at 3:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

   Interestingly, Vince Fuller has been predicting this
   outcome for years.

Which means that most everything ends up transported via or tunneled over TCP/80 and/or TCP/443

Does it? Do we really want to cripple our protocols just because a few ignorant service providers feel like filtering in a certain way?

(Note though that inferior protocol selection already happens to some degree: RTSP isn't doing so well these days, more and more stuff is streamed over HTTP because RTSP is firewall and NAT unfriendly.)

This whole horror story points to what should be the *real* political
issue, rather than the so-called "net neutrality" nonsense.

IMHO more use should be made of the terminology in RFC 4084 secttion 2.
In fact getting such terminology into consumer protection regulations
would be entirely appropriate. But that is way outside the IETF's scope.

What I'm afraid of is that we may end up in a situation where this is good enough for 95% of all people and in a market place with 1 - 3 players, nobody cares about that other 5%.

On the other hand, if that anonymous service provider has competition, I'm sure they're going to notice that those attract people who like to actually _use_ their broadband by running peer-to-peer applications. For just port 80, you don't need 20 Mbps. And ISPs make a lot of extra money upselling to higher speeds, which don't cost them much extra but do make them a good bit of extra money (with the exception of those few 24/7 downloaders).

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram