Re: [PLUG] cultural ethics of email and spam

[zuzu <sean.zuzu@gmail.com>]

On 10/17/07, Brian Stempin <brian.stempin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sure, but as a cultural mindset, I am suggesting that "growing the
> > pie" (i.e. just adding more cheap bandwidth) is too often "off the
> > table" of consideration.  this is the cultural problem at hand.
>
>
> This comment kinda sparked a thought in my head (mark the calendar!).  Isn't
> one of the reasons that people bash Vista due to the fact that, as JP's
> signature would suggest, Vista has effectively nullified Moore's law?
> Didn't Vista do this by (a) providing <x> new functionality and (b) using
> <x>^n worth of computing power?

(don't forget to include sysadmining / developers in that equation.
for example, garbage collection is more costly for computer resources
but saves programmers from having to manually manage memory, and
computers are getting faster and cheaper at a rate much faster than
humans are getting faster or cheaper.  so if the difference is between
humans working and computers working, always throw more computers at
the problem.)


> Isn't that what would happen with bandwidth?  Yeah, we'd have more
> throughput, but wouldn't we also (eventually?) have a disproportional growth
> in waste?  It's one thing to justify a growth in bandwidth for accommodating
> new features, but what I see is the suggestion that we need to justify a
> growth in bandwidth to keep doing what we're already doing.

the difference is _who decides_, which is the fundamental
epistemological question of all economic calculation.  individuals
choose (or not) to run Windows Vista (or XP or Linux or Plan9).

the problem I'm attempting to identify with QoS / tiering and
blacklisting is that a cabal of "central planners" are deciding for
users, rather than users deciding for themselves.  (individuals
choosing to use MAPS/RBL for their mail server is an interesting
debatable interpretation, I agree that much with you.  I don't like
the idea of government forcing you to not use blacklisting with your
own private property either.)


> Case and point:
>  Why would I purchase twice the bandwidth if I can only do as much with it
> (throughput wise, I must note...) as I could before I doubled it?  That just
> seems counterintuitive to me.

interestingly enough, "double the bandwidth" was exactly the scenario
debated by Dave Isenberg in his analysis that overprovisioning is less
expensive overall for a company than maintaining a QoS / deep packet
inspection system.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070709-neutral-net-needs-up-to-twice-the-bandwidth-of-a-tiered-network.html

A neutral 'Net needs up to twice the bandwidth of a tiered network

By Nate Anderson | Published: July 09, 2007 - 01:32PM CT

Recent research suggests the obvious: that building an
undifferentiated network requires far more capacity than one in which
traffic is prioritized, throttled, and controlled. But when AT&T
researchers are involved in writing the paper in question, the results
seem a bit more sinister. Is the research just another attempt by a
major backbone Internet operator to justify a non-neutral Internet?

Some observers think so. A recent piece in The Register on the paper
was titled "AT&T rigs net neutrality study"âtell us how you really
feel, gents.

But corporate sponsorship of research doesn't automatically invalidate
that research; what's needed is a close look at the actual results to
determine if they were done correctly. According to David Isenberg, a
long-time industry insider and proponent of "dumb" (neutral) networks,
the research itself is fine. In his view, it's simply obvious that a
dumb network will require more peak capacity than a managed one.

But extending that banal observation to make the claim that running a
managed network is cheaper is, to Isenberg, not at all intuitive. For
one thing, doubling the peak volume of a network does not mean
spending twice as much money as it cost to build the original network.
"The failure of the authors to extend the conclusions from capacity to
raw costs of capacity is deliberately misleading," Isenberg says,
"especially when the researchers invoked 'economic viability' and
'cost of capacity' in their introduction to the work."

He presents other arguments, but the gist of his criticism is that the
paper is fine (Isenberg used to work at AT&T and knows of the some
people involved in the research) but simply leaves out important
considerations. It cannot, then, be used to make the claim that a
non-neutral Net is a cheaper Net.

According to Isenberg, the cheapest and best alternative is simply to
build out dumb capacity: to "overprovision" by as much as 100 percent.
The "bandwidth is scarce" argument plays right into the hands of the
major ISPs, which can use it to start charging a premium for crucial
services that run across their networks. If they simply built out the
networks to the point of abundance, they couldn't make all this extra
money.

Vendors who sell quality of service and deep packet inspection gear
have been arguing that bandwidth is constrained for some time now; in
talks with Ars, several of these companies have stressed that
management is the only way to head off a bandwidth crisis. Throw more
capacity at the problem, they claim, and P2P and YouTube will simply
suck it up.

While this debate over network capacity can sound arcane, it's crucial
to the entire network neutrality argument. If Isenberg is right, then
there's no compelling reason for a non-neutral Net. ISPs should simply
invest in more capacity; it will be cheaper for them and it will allow
customers to use any services they want at full speed. If Isenberg's
wrong, then get ready for the wonders of a tiered Internet.

___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug