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@iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram