« Friday Catandarcblogging | Main | They Just Wanted To Bake Kofi A Cake »
Friday, December 15, 2006
A Response On Net Neutrality
I can't seem to post this message for some reason over at Eschaton (is that ironic, Alanis?), so I'll see if I can post some short blogwhore instead...
you're asking me to "trust corporate daddy" not to change the rules midstream.
What do you think protects you from that now? The FCC is already doing exactly what you want.
As one example, an ISP in NC tried blocking VoIP because they wanted to offer their own service. FCC got complaints and nailed them. And that's without any "net neutrality" on the books right now. It's not about blind trust in a corporation. Remember, I'm as anti-corporatist as they come. But I cannot abide the technical bullshit and ignorance that is driving the debate from both sides.
Until you can point me to language in an actual bill that will enable corporations to "change the rules midstream" when it comes to how a fucking global network operates, then I have to say you're misinformed and I don't know what else to do.
You won't accept my analogies, and rather go for your inflammatory ones. You won't accept my technical explanations, and rather "trust" other "informed" people because their descriptions fit your worldview. It's just like arguing about the moon landings with people who don't understand the physics of light in atmosphere versus no atmosphere, etc...
The best analogy is First Class Mail versus FedEx, as I already observed: just because there is FedEx doesn't mean you cannot send a letter for a few cents [ntodd]...this is fine (and already happens, why the need for a change?) as long as first class doesn't start charging based on what the letter says.
Sorry, but that's the shittiest analogy one could come up with. Nobody's charging more for the fucking first class letter, let alone based on the content. They're letting you send it faster if you want, for a premium.
E-mail and voice and video are all different applications with very different network requirements. E-mail doesn't change its meaning becuase it's delayed 3 seconds or 3 minutes. Delay changes the actual meaning of voice (try this at home: next time your SO says "I love you", wait 1 minute before responding). And video requires huge amounts of bandwidth for the full-service, HD stuff people want delivered.
The Post Office charges more for heavier items, and for faster service. Pizza Hut charges more if you put more toppings on your pizza, or for larger pizzas. The phone company charges you more for a variety of value-added services. There is absolutely no reason that ISPs cannot do the same. This doesn't point to a nefarious purpose.
ntodd
[Update: I'm too tired to put this all into context right now. Really, I was just having some posting issues over at Atrios' and wanted to make sure I got some thoughts down in response to comments. Here are a few links that I used at various points in the discussion if you'd like to get some idea of what Net Neutrality looks like from a networking professional's POV:
- Podcasts:
- tHAWT #5: May 25, 2006 - Net Neutrality featuring Dave Train, Trevor Hindson and Todd Pritsky
- tHAWT #11: July 7, 2006 - Net Neutrality Senate Hearings featuring Peter Southwick, Trevor Hindson, Mark Steinberg and Todd Pritsky
- tHAWT #29: The tHAWT police featuring Dave Train, Paul Whalen and Trevor Hindson
- Blog posts:
- The legislation: HR5252 (PDF)
At some point it looks like I'll need to do something comprehensive about this to dispel the bullshit from both sides of this silly debate. But not until I've submitted my damned final grades.]
December 15, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/25771/7180802
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Response On Net Neutrality:
Comments
I'm confused. Are you saying that Net Neutrality is a bad or dead idea? Or are you just arguing tech specs with someone?
My fear is that the ISPs will come up with a host of Valued Added bullshit that will niggle away some of the cool things we have on the web and make it harder for people to do what we do now. Yes, let's keep bandwidth as a sort of commodity. But can you imagine the mess when national/global corporations have to start paying individual ISPs for connection speed guarantees?
Hell, even on an interstate level, there's no way to charge Company X different rates for guaranteed connection speeds, what with the myriad ISPs out there. Or am I misunderstanding the concept?
Posted by: Ripley | Dec 15, 2006 10:38:54 PM
Well, this post is completely out of context, but the bottom line is that many people are misinformed about what ISPs are proposing for the future. They want to charge content providers for higher qualities of service to deliver things like HD video and stuff that's real time and/or requires large amounts of bandwidth. So folks are up in arms because they think that this "discriminates" and will mean that some blogs will take forever to load and politically correct sites will load quickly, and thus we need something that is horribly ill-defined called "net neutrality."
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 15, 2006 11:13:41 PM
PS - get one of these for Sam and find out what the little brat is up to.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/security/8212/
Posted by: Ripley | Dec 15, 2006 11:14:01 PM
Hey -- you do too have a blog.
I hope you're right. ('m just negative and paranoid enough to worry about damned near anything that sounds reasonably likely, though.)
Posted by: not tellin' ya | Dec 15, 2006 11:30:40 PM
The big problem is that the Net Neutrality folks are framing this issue without providing real, accurate definitions of anything. They talk about being "discriminatory" and the new telecom bill (which probably has legitimate flaws just like TA-96 did0 as "anti-NN" and so on.
Well, it's not like the legislation says anything that would harm NN, just that it doesn't include any language that guarantees some nebulous concept of NN. Really, it's like complaining about a bill that requires insurance companies to cover Plan B but doesn't include something that guarantees the right to an abortion and thus calling it an "anti-choice" bill. Disingenuous.
Of course Ted Stevens provides great fodder because he's pushing his telecom bill, and he's a completely clueless old motherfucker. But more on that when I tackle this topic more comprehensively later.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 16, 2006 12:03:33 AM
Only until you understand that the WTC was brought down by our reptilian overlords, in league with Opus Dei and the Trilateral Commission, with a particle beam weapon built from salvaged UFO technology and fired from a grassy knoll secretly built by Castro on the studio set of the moon landing, can we have a reasonable discussion.
Posted by: Uncle Smokes | Dec 16, 2006 12:04:46 AM
Ok, I get that - but, for instance, what say my Smalltown, USA bank doesn't want to pay the toll (and I'm being purposefully alarmist here). Now, do I/must I suffer the newly found anguish of not being able to bank online because my bank won't pony up $35k/year (for example) to 'guarantee' not them, but Me, unfettered access to their site.
Or is this strictly about high-band sites with video, like my most favoritest porn sites? And iTunes?
And here's the backside of this issue (no, we're off the porn thing, people - work with me!). I'm paying $56/month for cable ISP now. What happens to my ISP bill when the corps start charging for high-band? And who pays for it? The advertisers, the corporations, do we start seeing pay-to-view from our e-trading companies and online brokerages?
Bottom line - yes, the ISPs want to charge for bandwidth but who ends up paying?
Posted by: Ripley | Dec 16, 2006 1:47:29 AM
Silliness aside, I hven't thought too much about net neutrality, except in a vague, leery sort of way that I consider any legislation or policy that comes after an outbreak of "excess democracy."
I get part of what NTodd is speaking of--when arguing a point about net neutrality, try to distinguish between "content" and "format."
I have basic cable. That's all I want. I could pay more (a lot more) for the premium HD hookups. Is the price more because of the transmissions contain better shows? Of course not. It's the same swill I get on basic cable; however, there's 500 more channels of that swill being handled by new equipment for which there has been a significant capital investment.
Now...customers will convince themselves to pay more for perceived added value in the content, and that, too, allows for the higher price for premium cable.
Does all of this keep me from seeing the four or five channels I watch occasionally? Absolutely not. I pay for a basic service because that is all I need.
If I had a website wherein I thought I'd get more traffic by using bandwidth-hogging file streams and disk-hoarding music and video, I would expect to pay more for the use of network and server resources that were set up to handle that.
If I decide not to pay such prices and my website does not have those bells and whistles...well...sure my site won't become popular, as people respond to digital gimmicks and gewgaws like Pavlov's frothing dogs.
To put it another way: I do not own an industrial printing press nor do I employee a host of editors and reporters. However, I can print up newsletters and distribute them. I won't be the New York Times, though. My audience will be limited by my format.
The ability to make large capital investments in better equipment means that corporations will dominate, because people want the better quality. Thus I can see an argument about who dominates the desired format becomes the filter for what content gets seen by the majority.
Of course, that is an argument about the whole of media in a capitalist system, not just the internet.
To NTodd's point, if you want to stop corporations from dominating popular mediums for information transmission, then say so. If you are hankering for some sort of anarcho-syndicalist system where hierarchy and privilege no longer dictate to the masses, then say so. Using a net neutrality discussion to push such ideas just muddies the water.
From here on out, whenever someone grouses about net neutrality, I will pay closer attention to what they are saying. I suspect that if I do so, I will find they are selling something else.
Posted by: Uncle Smokes | Dec 16, 2006 9:59:39 AM
Ok, I get that - but, for instance, what say my Smalltown, USA bank doesn't want to pay the toll (and I'm being purposefully alarmist here). Now, do I/must I suffer the newly found anguish of not being able to bank online because my bank won't pony up $35k/year (for example) to 'guarantee' not them, but Me, unfettered access to their site.
Then you get the same online banking experience you have today. That's the whole point. If you're happy with the "best effort" that we have now, you still have that in the future. For those who want higher levels of service, they'll get some "guarantees". That's in quotes because nothing is guaranteed in IP, but their packets can get dumped into shorter queues and take paths that better meet their requirements.
What happens to my ISP bill when the corps start charging for high-band? And who pays for it? The advertisers, the corporations, do we start seeing pay-to-view from our e-trading companies and online brokerages?
The NN debate is about the backbone, not your access. And the whole point is to charge the content providers, not the end-users.
Or is this strictly about high-band sites with video, like my most favoritest porn sites? And iTunes?
It will be any site/application/content that the purveyor decided to pony up extra bucks for.
From here on out, whenever someone grouses about net neutrality, I will pay closer attention to what they are saying. I suspect that if I do so, I will find they are selling something else.
That's really it in a nutshell. ChiDy _et al_ were all about fear of corporations. YOU TRUST THEM TO NOT BLOCK YOUR BLOG? Uh...yes, I do. Because we already have to trust them, and it works just fine without any NN provision in legislation.
It's all FUD. And quite frankly, I'm rather annoyed with MyDD and other NN proponents. Not because the concept of NN is bad, but they are muddying the issue with their fear mongering language and never address the real technical issues, nor point to anything in the legislation specifically. They use Stevens as a convenient foil and rarely provide specifics, and when they do, it's misinformed crap.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 16, 2006 10:17:26 AM
I think the issue about "changing meaning" is interesting, but is it correct?
After all, video doesn't change it's meaning when delayed, either. You wait for the download, you play the video. This is, at least, better than driving to BlockBuster.
So, what's really at issue is not meaning, but the ability to supply gratification even more instant than we are already supplying.
From a public policy perspective--and I would say WE own the Internet, since WE won the protocols, just like WE own the airwaves--how important is all this, really?
Posted by: lambert strether | Dec 16, 2006 11:33:22 AM
After all, video doesn't change it's meaning when delayed, either. You wait for the download, you play the video. This is, at least, better than driving to BlockBuster.
Not if you're talking about streaming a realtime video conference. Video itself isn't monolithic.
From a public policy perspective--and I would say WE own the Internet, since WE won the protocols, just like WE own the airwaves--how important is all this, really?
Actually, we don't really own the Internet. Nobody does--people and organizations own pieces of it. Anybody can build a network and make the agreements with other providers to connect. You could become a provider if you wanted, create your own applications that rely on existing protocols or even define your own.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 16, 2006 11:44:20 AM
Thank you for this explanation. I have a wave of suspicion whenever corporations start talking about the net, especially in this era when we have seen things happen that are based on greed not humanity. It is because I don't have a clear idea how the net actually works that every time haloscan goes down or Blogger gets bloggered I see the nefarious hand of Bush and his corporate cohorts.
The November election obviously was helped by the net; the politicians obviously want to control the spin, the desire for you to forget what they said last week; the mainstream media obviously dislikes the newest threat to their domain; the corporations obviously would like to insert themselves into the internets because of the clear potential for making money; it is obvious that things will change.
The control of information is power, and it is hard for me to imagine the people in power want to share with the common man.
But your post does make me feel a little less under attack...
Posted by: ellroon | Dec 16, 2006 12:39:24 PM
For those who want higher levels of service, they'll get some "guarantees". That's in quotes because nothing is guaranteed in IP, but their packets can get dumped into shorter queues and take paths that better meet their requirements.
But isn't it implicit in guaranteeing Person A a higher level of service that Person B is gonna get a lower -- mebbe lower than today's norm -- level of service? Is it a zero sum game or not?
The NN debate is about the backbone, not your access. And the whole point is to charge the content providers, not the end-users.
Content providers are by and large publicly traded companies. Guaranteed access charges absorbed by them would eat into their profits and therefore their stock price. This ain't gonna happen. The charge will be passed on to end users, somehow. That's just life in a capitalist system.
Those are my quick thoughts. I really do hope you post a full discussion of this issue -- aimed at us laypeople. Mebbe along with somebody on the other side of the debate. My gut reaction is that Net Neutrality is a good thing, but you know what you're talking about from the technical side, so I'd really like to hear more than the odd crack den comment from you.
Posted by: flory | Dec 16, 2006 6:35:44 PM
But isn't it implicit in guaranteeing Person A a higher level of service that Person B is gonna get a lower -- mebbe lower than today's norm -- level of service?
It is indeed NOT a zero sum game. Again, does your first class mail take longer now that FedEx and UPS and the USPS offer priority services? No. Your base service will not change.
The charge will be passed on to end users, somehow. That's just life in a capitalist system.
As I've said, that's more than likely, but the ISPs are not charging the customer directly. They are telling the content providers that if THEY want to access their customers, they need to put in some skin. Not unreasonable, and the content folks have some options: make it up in volume, provide greater value and charge a bit more for it, or come up with some other solution.
Bottom-line: this is really no different than how we've treated any other service in the past (post office, telephone network, wireless broadcasting), all of which were critical to our nation at the time they were implemented.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 17, 2006 1:40:06 AM
Buy me stuff off my 
