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

Not tenfold, 800-fold, and the actual uptick would depend on the number of fibers bundled in the cable, because this is a per-fiber measure. 


But BTW, the situation here is quite muddled by the fact that the government has spent, over the past few years, some heavy bucks on monitoring and archiving voice traffic, supposedly in the country. A depressing news report this morning says that a group of government officials have announced that everything is in place to assure full monitoring to be initiated in the next few months. No doubt an echelon of officials will manage this to the country's success.


Vendors of hardware are said to be delighted that a whole new market in data enabled voice application is taking off, thus creating a new round of demand for even more humongously capable hardware, absolutely necessary to ensure a comfortable life of retirement for all those involved in the decision. 


They appear to not be phased at all by the "thin gnat voices, from star to star" muttering about privacy. More meaningful is a court decision that government officials cannot be tapped without the standard senior official permission, also known laughingly as "No!" and more generally as "We are studying the request".


I am a bit surprised that nobody here seems much concerned about this. We may be uncomfortably seized with the grosser aspects of freedom of speech within the list, but strangely silent about what is being done to our electronic channels of communication.


One must assume that this diversion of signals does not impact the throughput. Surely even small interference levels would be hugely perceptible? Or would it be submerged in underachievement on traffic handling parameters as gross throughput ramps up? Which body in this country exists to demand QoS on throughput, both potential and actually achieved? When wireless is such an important part of the mix, who is to chastise the government for allowing feckless demands from security mavens to mismanage the delivery? The entire delivery system, except for a few piddling exceptions, is end-to-end managed by corporate entities who have compromised on signal and data integrity in order to collaborate with these elements of officialdom. This seems to remain beyond the understanding of the Supreme Court, which is seemingly not concerned about how its 1995 ruling on the freedom of the airwaves is being interpreted. 


While it is true that some people poison ordinary conversations in the domain of public discourse, as we have seen here, but the alternative is the elimination of public spaces for discourse. Pity, but there are no grey areas in between. 


And the test of freedom is not how well you defend it in the good times, but how much pain you can take to defend it when it is under threat. 

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From:"Arun Mehta" <[email protected]>
Date:Thu, 21 May, 2015 at 8:24 am
Subject:Re: [india-gii] why strict Net neutrality works best: simple beats	complex

stOn Wed, May 20, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Kiritkumar Lathia <[email protected]> wrote:

Narendra wrote: "Dear telco, Please design or create new business model where telco can get the profit with following strict net neutrality. We are ready to pay whatever it cost."

COAI argument: OTT (Skype, WhatsApp, ...) have taken away cash cow (voice calls) and so we need to increase data costs by x6 to stay in business ! Alternatively, the Telco Regulations should apply to them (charging, call terminations charges, call data storage for x months, police wire-tapping, spectrum costs, universal service obligations, area coverage, ....) 


I would like to see their calculations for the 6x -- in any case, setting tariffs is the job of TRAI, so I hope they are looking at this "calculation"

 


Remember: Telco is a regulated industry whereas "Internet" is not regulated at all (there is self regulation but not government regulations).

Arun had talked about "policing": Here it is not human police but the "technical term" as Arun knows - so replace "policing" by QoS whereby "rouge" packets (corrupted packets, duplicate packets, data heavy packets, ...) are throttled or discarded (!) to provide QoS to all "valid" packets.


Again -- this attempt at improving QoS will only worsen QoS -- it is much, much  better to use the money for faster switches, and stuff. Your road analogy, Kirit -- reserving a lane for priority traffic certainly slowed down the speed for everyone else, but the confusion that it caused at crossings led perhaps to even the priority traffic moving slower. Imagine, as in the case of optic fiber, that improved technology increses its capacity all the time.  For instance, "recent advances in modulation technology mean that with QPSK, 4QAM or 16QAM modulation, 1/80th of a dark fiber pair can carry a 100 Gbps signal in the optical space previously occupied by a single long distance 10 Gbps circuit." (http://www.metafilter.com/131783/The-data-capacity-of-a-fiber-optic-cable). Does it in this case make sense to spend money on technology that in the name of QoS slows down traffic, or better switches that increase capacity tenfold? Whether you call it policing
 or QoS, it's a lose-lose.

Arun Mehta

_______________________________________________
India-gii mailing list
India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii