Re: [re-ECN] ECN fundamentals pt2/2 (was: Re: Name for BoF?)

[Bob Briscoe <[e-mail]>]

Phil,

At 18:05 02/10/2009, [e-mail] wrote:
>Agree with you joe.
>
>One of the barriers to investment is that 
>increasing capacity may not lead to better e2e 
>qos (because the problem is somewhere else). By 
>exposing information about congestion, it should 
>be easier to assign blame correctly about where 
>the bottleneck is - and therefore improve the 
>incentive to invest in more capacity (I can tell 
>you're a good guy, so shift my traffic to you - 
>you gain by getting the connection etc charge).
>
>Maybe that sounds a rather indirect argument - 
>but given there are incentives to invest in 
>capacity today, I think better information about 
>the bottlenecks should help the incentives to invest.
>
>The obvious counter-example is where a consumer 
>has only one choice of local provider and then 
>indeed it does seem that the ISP can make "more 
>money because their network is congested". But 
>the problem here is that the ISP has a 
>termination monopoly, which basically needs to 
>be tackled by regulation in some shape or form - 
>there is exactly the same issue today.

Actually, you can create technical solutions to 
remove termination monopolies. See mail to Stuart 
Venters that I just sent in this same thread.


Bob


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joe Babiarz [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: 02 October 2009 16:03
>To: Eardley,PL,Philip,DEE1 R; 
>[e-mail]; 
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [re-ECN] ECN fundamentals pt2/2 (was: Re: Name for BoF?)
>
>Would like to add that the protocol should be designed so that it does not
>discourage ISPs from increasing capacity of their networks. We do not want
>ISPs be making more money because their network is congested.
>
>Regards, Joe.
>[e-mail]
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>[e-mail]
>Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 5:08 AM
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>[e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [re-ECN] ECN fundamentals pt2/2 (was: Re: Name for BoF?)
>
>I agree.
>
>In practice I guess that the consumer will have a choice between (say) 3
>tiers of service (basic, plus, super advanced). although different monthly
>congestion allowances (& maybe difference maximum congestion rates) will be
>part of that, most consumers won't really understand it (just as today most
>don't understand what 20mb/s or 1gb mean). But there are independent experts
>that check comparative performance of different ISPs, and you can run a
>program to check what performance you actually get.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>Mirja Kuehlewind
>Sent: 02 October 2009 09:28
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [re-ECN] ECN fundamentals pt2/2 (was: Re: Name for BoF?)
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>On Friday 02 October 2009 07:32:18 Michael Menth wrote:
> > Apart from that, I wonder whether a monthly congestion allowance or a
> > maximum congestion rate can be sold to the customer because that is more
> > abstract and harder to verify for the user. Even I do not know what I
> > get for a congestion allowance of 1 MB/month or a maximum congestion
> > rate of 10 KB/s. That was one of the criticisms I've heard when
> > discussing about re-feedback. Opinions?
> >
>I don't see that you have to sell the congestion rate to the costumer. It's
>just one part of the contract which will have some more or less meaningful
>names like "fast access" or "high speed access". People don't know what the
>max. access speed in todays contracts means neither...
>
>Mirja
>
>
>
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
>Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
>University of Stuttgart, Germany
>Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart
>
>web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
>email: [e-mail]
>tel: [phone]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2409 - Release Date: 10/02/09
>06:46:00
>
>_______________________________________________
>re-ECN mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design