Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering

Iljitsch van Beijnum <> Thu, 03 January 2008 10:39 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANUK-0001gg-NE; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:39:48 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANUI-0001gW-JY for; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:39:46 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JANUE-00052Y-U7 for; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 05:39:46 -0500
Received: from [IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13] ([IPv6:2001:1af8:5:1:21b:63ff:fe02:3c13]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m03Ac9gZ010784 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:38:10 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from
Message-Id: <>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v915)
Subject: Re: [RAM] A curious Internet service offering
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:38:13 +0100
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.915)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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