Re: why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats complex

I have two issues with the line of thinking below even though I 
understand that a VoiP packet is far more time sensitive than a Youtube 
cat video.

1.) If we allow for packet header inspection and prioritization, who 
exactly is allowed to make these choices and how can you guarantee the 
rest of us that no one will misuse this process?

2.) Can you explain why a person who has so clearly laid out a succinct 
argument for keeping our network as simple as possible would now 
advocate adding another level of complexity?

 From my point of view, the problem isn't that we need to invest in 
prioritization because our networks are too congested, the problem lies 
in the fact that we are not spending enough money adding capacity. What 
you propose is to take funds away from building network infrastructure 
to be used for a bandaid.


On 05/19/2015 06:56 AM, Kiritkumar Lathia wrote:
> Arun, whether one wants to or not, these all packet header fields need 
> to be analysed to allow proper packet flow. The Priority/Traffic Class 
> is a 8 bit field if I remember correctly so you are not going to have 
> that much choices in the priorities. That is why I try to always 
> explain by using roads as example. During Commonwealth games, a 
> priority lane was "permanently" created for VIPs traffic - think of 
> this as a dedicated "virtual circuit switch". On the other hand you 
> have ambulances, police, etc. who want to have priority on the road so 
> they can save lives. One know this by flashing lights and sirens - 
> consider this as "Priority Class=x". People have to move out 
> (throttled) to allow the priority cars to go forward.
> This will be needed more and more as we move to 5G which will change 
> the Internet we know it today with a conservative estimate of 
> 50+billion devices connected to Internet vs about 6billion for human 
> beings! When we talk about e-health where a surgeon is operating on a 
> patient remotely using robotic arms and instruments; should this 
> suffer the same potential delays because someone is downloading a film?

As millimeter wave communications continues to drop in price and near 
field terahertz wave communication is now becoming practical, I see no 
such problem with data freely passing as you predict - that is, unless 
we start implementing prioritization instead of building out the network 
we need. Additionally, fiber has become so cheap to deploy that it now 
makes financial sense to remove the copper network and replace it with 
fiber - and that's calculated at US labor rates.

To fall back on your comparison to roads, the only real way to relive 
traffic jams is to build additional capacity - not to add one million 
policemen to direct traffic.

The IOT is often used to inject FUD into this discussion but the reality 
is, even if we were to add "50+billion devices" to the network, almost 
all of them will be very low bit rate devices.

Ken DiPietro
Cumberland MD