Subject: [iucg] NN - Definition

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:12:48 +0200

http://wikalfa.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A9_du_r%C3%A9seau_-_Network_neutrality 
(domaine public/public domain).

Thank you for your comments.
Merci pour vos commentaires.

jfc

---

La fourniture d'un service de réseau est dite techniquement neutre 
lorsque tous les systèmes participant au processus de bout en bout 
peuvent être remplacés au hasard par leurs équivalents techniques de 
tout autre opérateur sans être améliorée.

The provision of a network service is said to be technically neutral 
when every system participating in the end-to-end process can 
randomly be replaced by its technical equivalent from any other 
operators without being enhanced.

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:46:06 +0200

jefsey wrote:
> The provision of a network *service* is said to be technically neutral 
> when every system participating in the end-to-end process can randomly 
> be replaced by its technical equivalent from any other operators 
> *without being enhanced*.

I think it could be bettered somewhat, although I don't propose any 
alternative text.  One nit is "the end-to-end process".  Is that the service 
being provisioned itself?

It is harder to explain "technical equivalence", as it is being defined 
simultaneously.

---

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:30:02 +0200

At 12:46 17/08/2010, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>jefsey wrote:
>>The provision of a network *service* is said to be technically 
>>neutral when every system participating in the end-to-end process 
>>can randomly be replaced by its technical equivalent from any other 
>>operators *without being enhanced*.
>
>alternative text.  One nit is "the end-to-end process".  Is that the 
>service being provisioned itself?

Hi! Alessandro.

I am not sure I grasp the point. So let me develop. The end to end 
process is just where the service is provisionned (so it is clearly 
delimited, off the rope services are not comparable because there is 
no standard - at least so far). Under Interplus for example, NN can 
be considered on a box to box basis. The only thing which can be 
qualified as neutral IMHO is the provision, the way the service is delivered.

>It is harder to explain "technical equivalence", as it is being 
>defined simultaneously.

This is the reason why "randomly" is being used. Technical 
equivalence can be IMHO a loose notion (for equipment, design, 
support, etc.) because the criteria is the possible enhancement.

Let take an ISP which offer lower speed due to older machines or 
cheaper lines, but at the same price as others. Their service is not 
neutral. They make more money for lower capital expenditure? Randomly 
means that any other switcher, modem, filter, architecture, 
bandwidth, etc. brand used by the competition can be considered for 
replacement: sometimes the service will become poorer - this is OK 
for the user. Sometimes it will become better - this is bad news for 
the user: it means that their current setting is not neutral to something.

One could also say: "can randomly be replaced by its technical 
equivalent managed by any other operators without being enhanced".

Speaking of service provision also makes clear that neutrality must 
be on equivalently advertized services (so, probably similarly 
rated)? However, the most interesting point here seems to be that 
neutrality is not defined in comparison with another service (by 
another ISP, with a different aim, etc.) but within the same service.
jfc

---

From: Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:01:02 +0200

2010/8/17 jefsey <[email-masked]>

> One could also say: "can randomly be replaced by its technical equivalent
> managed by any other operators without being enhanced".
>
> Speaking of service provision also makes clear that neutrality must be on
> equivalently advertized services (so, probably similarly rated)? However,
> the most interesting point here seems to be that neutrality is not defined
> in comparison with another service (by another ISP, with a different aim,
> etc.) but within the same service.
>

If I am right the NN definition you consider is "technical". However from a
technical user point of view. This may lead to fuzzy definitions and diffuse
understanding. We need a clear point of view of reference (that the Internet
may be "used better"? as an equivalent to  the IETF's "work better"?).
Alessandro is right about defining "technical equivalence". But is
"technical equivalence" important? The point is not so much the equipment
but the management of the equipement.

I support end to end and I am circumspect about box to box, because it
includes the User Interface which may be more or less confusing. This should
not be part of NN? Except if the UI confusion is created on purpose to
demotive or surmotive users.

MF Berny

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:10:25 +0200

Hi Jefsey,
I just stomped on that definition, without being fully aware of other 
arguments developed in the wikalfa.  I appeal to your patience if I'm being 
inopportune.

jefsey wrote:
>>> neutral when every system participating in the end-to-end process can 
> [...]
> This is the reason why "randomly" is being used. Technical equivalence 
> can be IMHO a loose notion (for equipment, design, support, etc.) 
> because the criteria is the possible enhancement.

As long as digital processes are involved, it is always possible to emulate 
one.  If the service is a standard protocol, it should suffice to implement 
the same protocol correctly.  Performance may vary, though.

> Let take an ISP which offer lower speed due to older machines or cheaper 
> lines, but at the same price as others. Their service is not neutral

(Would it be neutral if they charged a fair price?)

> They make more money for lower capital expenditure? Randomly means that 
> any other switcher, modem, filter, architecture, bandwidth, etc. brand 
> used by the competition can be considered for replacement: sometimes the 
> service will become poorer - this is OK for the user. Sometimes it will 
> become better - this is bad news for the user: it means that their 
> current setting is not neutral to something.

Perhaps one would also expect that NN implies comparable costs.  E.g. an 
African ISP should charge a price that an African citizen can afford.  IMHO, 
it is not much practical to delve that deep.

> Speaking of service provision also makes clear that neutrality must be 
> on equivalently advertized services (so, probably similarly rated)? 
> However, the most interesting point here seems to be that neutrality is 
> not defined in comparison with another service (by another ISP, with a 
> different aim, etc.) but within the same service.

Besides costs and performance, what else is going to be "enhanced"?  For 
example, if I enjoy better mail deliverability from my current IP --because 
it has been included in some whitelists-- is that an enhancement?  If I 
replace that mailout end-point with another one and, by chance, it happens to 
get a badly reputed IP, then I would have worsen the service.  That seems an 
NN violation to me.

Again, I apologize if my comments are off-topic...

---

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:03:29 +0200

At 19:10 17/08/2010, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>Hi Jefsey,
>I just stomped on that definition, without being fully aware of 
>other arguments developed in the wikalfa.  I appeal to your patience 
>if I'm being inopportune.

Inopportune? You kinding! This is a list for everyone to speak-up 
his/her mind!!!
And your points are of real interest.

We are in a difficult case: as Marie-France says we need to have a 
clear point of view, i.e. a well established location from where we 
speak, so others can understand. IETF and Civil Society have such a 
place (technically work better for the IETF, human rights for the 
Civil Society). Us as Internet/IETF users we are in between: our 
location is a satisfied user experience. A satisfied experience is 
not something we can qualify. But a user related thing can probably 
be measured in terms of quality of something  vs. something one can 
define. I would use the term 
(http://wikalfa.org/wiki/QdP_Qualit%C3%A9_de_prestation_-_QoP_Quality_of_provision) 
quality of provision (QoP) not to confuse with QoS. Quality of 
Prestation (QoP) would then refer to the capability to match users's 
expectations. It should be quantified in comparison with expected, 
contracted, and/or equivalent offers deliveries

Most of the NN debate is oriented towards subjective/legal principle 
issues. QoP would permit to stay in between engineers and lawyers and 
may be to be understood by both and by users and operators. However, 
QoP will stay something with a personal margin, and to be worked on 
more in detail.

jfc

PS. I am trying to compile and compare elements from Civil Society 
debate in order to see what can be reduced at a user technical level.

>>>>can randomly be replaced by its technical equivalent from any 
>>>>other operators *without being enhanced*.
>>[...]
>As long as digital processes are involved, it is always possible to 
>emulate one.  If the service is a standard protocol, it should 
>suffice to implement the same protocol correctly.  Performance may 
>vary, though.
>
>>cheaper lines, but at the same price as others. Their service is not neutral
>
>>They make more money for lower capital expenditure? Randomly means 
>>that any other switcher, modem, filter, architecture, bandwidth, 
>>etc. brand used by the competition can be considered for 
>>for the user. Sometimes it will become better - this is bad news 
>>for the user: it means that their current setting is not neutral to something.
>
>Perhaps one would also expect that NN implies comparable 
>costs.  E.g. an African ISP should charge a price that an African 
>citizen can afford.  IMHO, it is not much practical to delve that deep.
>
>Besides costs and performance, what else is going to be 
>"enhanced"?  For example, if I enjoy better mail deliverability from 
>my current IP --because it has been included in some whitelists-- is 
>that an enhancement?  If I replace that mailout end-point with 
>another one and, by chance, it happens to get a badly reputed IP, 
>then I would have worsen the service.  That seems an NN violation to me.
>
>_______________________________________________
>iucg mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iucg