[e2e] end2end-interest Digest, Vol 39, Issue 32

Mon May 21 16:22:43 PDT 2007

Folks, no judgement on any of the opinions set forth, but I tune
into Bill O'Reilly if I want to watch a slug fest.  I humbly suggest
sticking to end2end interest without the personal stuff.  This thread
is making me start to automatically delete e2e emails.

Maybe an e2e-bad-attitude is in order :-)  It might be fun, actually.

Cheers,
-- Sam

On Mon, 21 May 2007, David P. Reed wrote:

> Insulting the Media Lab as a playground is rather unnecessary, and since
> I claimed no credibility from where I work, it really sounds rather
> stupid as a rhetorical device.  Does it make you feel superior?
>
> I got my terminology regarding network externalities and increasing
> returns from discussions and writings with economists and business
> school professors.  It's very possible that I'm wrong in my usage - and
> I'm happy to be corrected.
>
> However, I didn't claim that network externalities were the *same* as
> increasing returns to scale.   My fault for a non-parallel construction
> in that sentence, which might suggest that I thought that they were the
> same thing.   They are different, and *both* apply to my argument.
>
> I was using the economist term "network externalities" not the
> regulatory law term.   Sorry to be confusing if I was.   If you are
> instead taking the opportunity for gratuitous insult, my skin is thick.
>
>
>
> Peyman Faratin wrote:
> >>
> >
> > David
> >
> > I am not sure whether the folks are building computers from sand in
> > the playground of the media lab, but I can say that you are "inventing
> > your own science from scratch".
> >
> > Network externality is _not_ the same concept as increasing return to
> > scale. One is to do with (desirable/undesirable) side-effects of
> > actions of one agent on another not in the original contract
> > (externalities) and the other is to do with efficiency gains of
> > productions of a _single_ firm (where the average cost of production
> > diminishes with increasing quantities produced). The marginal cost of
> > checking these facts is insignificant in this day and age of google
> > and wikipedia.
> >
> > Regulation and economics of networks are non-trivial and require
> > attention to the details of the arguments that people so freely
> > misrepresent. Government regulation did have a very significant impact
> > on the Internet (through differential settlement structures between
> > interconnecting PSTN and early dialup ISPs). This government
> > regulation of settlements in fact _helped_ Internet scaling, not to
> > mention their public investment in the interchanges and the backbone.
> > MSN was rolled out and could've tipped to become the dominant standard
> > (as many other inferior technologies have done so historically -
> > VHS/Betmax, Gasoline/steam,....). See [1] and [2] for some more recent
> > text on the economics and regulation of Internet.
> >
> > Determination of causality in an (un)regulated economy is a very
> > non-trivial task and, like all sciences, the validity of an economic
> > (and the accompanying regulatory) hypothesis/proposition is
> > conditioned on the semantics of the model primitives (externalities,
> > returns to scale, etc). The devil is in the details.
> >
> > best
> >
> > Peyman
> >
> > [1] H. E. Nuechterlein and P.J. Weiser (2005) /Digital Crossroads:
> > American Telecommunications Policy in the Internet Age/, MIT Press,
> > Cambridge, MA, US, 2005
> >
> > [2] Handbook of Telecommunications Economics, Technology Evolution and
> > the Internet, Vol.2, S.K. Majumdar, I Vogelsang and M. Cave (eds),
> > Elsevier, 289—364, 2005.
> >
> >>>
> >> One can, at any time, create a non-interoperable network.   Corporations
> >> do it all the time - they create a boundary at their corporate edge and
> >> block transit, entry, and exit of packets.
> >>
> >> That is not the Internet.   It's a private network based on the IP
> >> protocol stack.  Things get muddier if there is limited
> >> interconnection.   Then, the Internet would be best defined as the
> >> bounded system of endpoints that can each originate packets to each
> >> other that *will* be delivered with best efforts.   It's hard to draw
> >> that boundary, but it exists.
> >>
> >> Given this view, I don't think government regulations played a
> >> significant role in the growth of the Internet.   We have had lots of
> >> private networks, many larger than the Internet.   I know, for example,
> >> that Microsoft built a large x.25 based network in 1985 to provide
> >> non-Internet dialup information services for Windows.   It was called
> >> MSN, and was designed to compete with the large private AOL network.
> >>
> >> What the Internet had going for it was *scalability* and
> >> *interoperability*.   Metcalfe's Law and Reed's Law and other "laws".
> >> Those created connectivity options that scaled faster than private
> >> networks could.   Economists calle these "network externalites"  or
> >> "increasing returns to scale".
> >>
> >> Gov't regulation *could* have killed the Internet's scalability.   Easy
> >> ways would be to make interconnection of networks a point of control
> >> that was taxed or monitored (e.g. if trans-border connectivity were
> >> viewed as a point for US Customs do inspect or if CALEA were implemented
> >> at peering points).
> >>
> >> But lacking that, AOL and MSN just could not compete with the
> >> scalability of the Internet.
> >>
> >> That has nothing to do with competition to supply IP software stacks in
> >> operating systems, or competition among Ethernet hardware vendors.
> >>
> >> However, increasing returns to scale is not Destiny.   The Internet was
> >> not destined to become the sole network.   But all the members of the
> >> Internet (people who can communicate with anyone else on it) would be
> >> nuts to choose a lesser network unless they suffer badly enough to
> >> outweigh the collective benefits.
> >>
> >> Individualist hermits don't get this, I guess.   If you want to be left
> >> alone, and don't depend on anyone else, there are no returns to scale
> >> for you at any scale.   Grow your own bits in the backyard, make your
> >> own computers from sand, invent your own science from scratch.   If the
> >> walls are high enough, perhaps you can survive without connectivity.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 3
> >> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:46:03 -0400
> >> From: Haining Wang <hnw at cs.wm.edu <mailto:hnw at cs.wm.edu>>
> >> Subject: [e2e] Call for Participation - IWQoS'2007
> >> To: end2end-interest at postel.org <mailto:end2end-interest at postel.org>
> >> Message-ID: <FDC6B43C-8B6E-4FFD-8799-3A7DAE1091AE at cs.wm.edu
> >> <mailto:FDC6B43C-8B6E-4FFD-8799-3A7DAE1091AE at cs.wm.edu>>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> >>
> >>
> >> (Apologies if you have received this more than once)
> >>
> >> ========================================================================
> >>                            CALL FOR PARTICIPATION
> >>
> >> Fifteenth IEEE International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS 2007)
> >>
> >>                       Chicago, IL, USA,   June 21-22, 2007
> >>                         http://iwqos07.ece.ucdavis.edu/
> >>
> >> IWQoS has emerged as the premier workshop on cutting edge research and
> >> technologies on quality of service (QoS) since its first establishment
> >> in 1994. Building on the successes of previous workshops, the objective
> >> of IEEE IWQoS 2007 is to bring together researchers, developers, and
> >> practitioners working in this area to discuss innovative research
> >> results, and identify future directions and challenges. We will continue
> >> IWQoS's long standing tradition of being highly interactive while
> >> maintaining highest standards of competitiveness and excellence. This
> >> characteristic will be re-emphasized through a technical program
> >> consisting of keynote addresses, rigorously reviewed technical sessions
> >> (including both long and short papers), and stimulating panel
> >> discussions about controversial and cutting edge topics. The panel and
> >> the short paper sessions will be highly interactive and leave much time
> >> and space for the audience to get involved.
> >>
> >> We encourage you to check our Web site for the registration and advance
> >> program as well as up-to-date conference information:
> >>
> >> 1. Registration.  The early registration deadline is 6/4.  Please check
> >>     out the registration online at
> >>     http://iwqos07.ece.ucdavis.edu/registration.html
> >>
> >> 2. Hotel reservation. We have reserved a block of rooms at Hilton Garden
> >> Inn.  The group rate is USD 129 per night, USD 10 per extra person. The
> >> group code is "IWQoS". The reservation line is 847/475-6400 or
> >> 1-877-STAYHGI (782-9444). Please be sure to mention the group code to
> >> get the discounted rate. The CUT OFF DATE for this reservation is MAY
> >> 29.
> >> That is, the reservations and the rate are valid only till then.
> >> Therefore,
> >> PLEASE RESERVE YOUR ROOM ASAP.  Note that it will be very hard to get
> >> any room after the deadline.  For more information, check out the
> >> travel page
> >> at the IWQoS website:
> >> http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~ychen/services/iwqos07-travel.html
> >> <http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/%7Eychen/services/iwqos07-travel.html>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> end2end-interest mailing list
> >> end2end-interest at postel.org <mailto:end2end-interest at postel.org>
> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/end2end-interest
> >>
> >>
> >> End of end2end-interest Digest, Vol 39, Issue 32
> >> ************************************************
> >
>