I see your point, and it would be valid if I were referring to your standards. But I was referring to the IMS specifications, instead. But I'm glad you went on to elaborate on your points, just the same ;)
Network neutrality isn't new. I had my first run in with it during the early Seventies, when analog data lines were all the rage in data communications. The following is slightly edited from how it will appear in the next Cook Report. I posted it to a similar discusson taking place on that list at this time:
[... and I'd venture to say that this topic is actually taking place on hundreds of other boards at this time, as well ..]
---snip:
It was forty years ago when the Carterfone decision played large into conditions affecting net neutrality and QoS, and its mark would be left for many years to come. It's only now that I'm beginning to wonder if it's worn off. But getting back to those earlier times, the best way to explain this is to demonstrate how it was used to help set the playing field when analog modems were used almost exclusively.
At the time (and here I'm referring to the early to mid-Seventies), modems, or "data sets", as they were called, were manufactured by both AT&T's Western Electric unit ("Bell modems") and by independent equipment manufacturers, such as Vadic, Milgo, Codex, General DataCom, and many more. When a customer used one of the latter, it was called a "customer owned and maintained" or "COAM" modem, manufactured by an independent equipment maker. So, a line could employ either Bell Modems, or COAM Modems, and they were admistered by the telco accordingly, although, according to the rules of the land at the time, fairly, as well. Or, so it was purported by the powers that be.
In the early going, COAM modem manufacturers and their customers complained that the telcos were not providing private lines to them that were comparable in quality to those that were being used when Bell modems were used. And they weren't. To remedy this, after due urging by regulators and the FCC, AT&T came to publish a series of publications that specified:
-- The parameters affecting data communications
-- The parameters affecting the manufacture of data communications equipuipment
-- The techniques used to measure parameters affecting data communications.
-- A plethora of other specifications geared to "network protection" devices, ordering codes, you name it, several hundred in all ...
The first of these (above) was the Bell System Publication No. 41004, which, I believe, actually had its roots prior to Carterfone for certain ITU (nee CCITT) requirements: "The Parameters Affecting Data Communications." It listed, qualified and quantified fourteen (14) properties and impairment categories, while setting limits for each. Beyond these "basic" conditions, customers could also request specially-conditioned lines (C1, C2, D1), which were also designed to establish working guidelines per the three bulleted items above, only more stringent.
The implication being that, if a Bell data set at a given data rate (throughput) could operate over a line meeting these tariffed parameters and grades of conditioning, then a "foreign" device should be able to, as well. That's the short of it.
This regime worked rather well until "high-speed" 9.6 kbps and 19.3 kbps services began to surface using modulation techniques that were sensitive to parameters outside the original purview of 41004. Such as low-frequency phase hits, harmonic hits, and others. But all in all, those were resolved with rider statements to the publication, and a fairness model was attempted that ensured some semblance of neutral treatment of end user's preferences. Granted, this is a different domain of neutrality consideration than we usually discuss here (there are many, as it turns out), but the considerations are similar.
I'm not sure how, in today's world, a similar model of "comparableness" would be fashioned, but it's certainly time that the industry begins to consider one, imo. One that would ensure comparably permissive access, perhaps, may be the best way to state it. I'd be interested in reading thoughts on this matter from others.
---end
FAC |
