[e2e] end of interest

Jon Crowcroft Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sun Apr 20 03:17:52 PDT 2008

cleanslate - i dont see that the virtualisation clean slate architectures violate any of Joe's 
internet rights at all - there's at least 3 virtualisation projects I can think of
(washington st louis, princeton/gatech, and ucl/lancaster)...

p2p v. isp: this is standard value chain stuff.

the value of the net to users is that it connects them to content. the network providers 
are in the business of taking a fraction of the business that the content providers are in
but it isn't good business to dictate to yor customer how they use what they pay for
so the fact that iplayer does p2p delivery (and skype does p2p voip) is none of the ISPs 
business -in fact the cos to the consumer of the content service (bbc content, voip, etc) is massively redced
by doing it this way, which means the profit to the content service provider is a percentage of a smalelr sum, and
the percentage to be made by the common carrier (oops, sorry, ISP, so logn as it isnt comcast:) 
is smaller....forcing a content provider back to a data center (and more expensive (and less green)) alternative,
increases their costs, which means the cost to the consumer goes up and the number of consumers goes down, and the
number of boradband ISP customers goes down.

so what do you want as an ISP - more higher bandwidth consumers with a lower margin, or
less with a higher margin? do the math. (you need access to some guesstimates of the
costs but for the bbc, its clear that the income is (in the uk) from license fee (plus sales of programs to the
US)...if you ask them to run a massive data center (or pay akamai for distribution) then you will get zero
customers. so the income from uk brodband custmers from that aspect goes to zero. so theres more incomei in
providing it than not. ergo, the ISPs are posturing.

In missive <6d2996bb0804200043i76986be9n32282fff2814ae02 at mail.gmail.com>, "Saikat Guha" typed:

 >>On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
 >>> > so maybe a more fundemental (e2e) idea is a bill of rights for packets
 >>> >
 >>>  See:
 >>>  http://www.isi.edu/touch/internet-rights/
 >>Interesting; virtually all "clean-slate" architectures would violate
 >>the letter of these requirements, but perhaps not the spirit.
 >>More to the point of this discussion, point #4 reads "Users have the
 >>right to send [...] provided it uses an inconsequential amount of
 >>resources of the network". The debate between BBC's iPlayer and the UK
 >>ISPs seems to stem from the surge of traffic created (unilaterally) by
 >>the BBC's system designers. If the BBC coordinated with the ISPs,
 >>perhaps to place caches at appropriate locations, perhaps use P4P,
 >>etc., the ISP would have been better prepared to handle the surge.
 >>Does e2e tacitly encourage unilateralism in terms of ends vs. the
 >>middle, or is that an artifact of competing interests?



More information about the end2end-interest mailing list