- ‹ previous
- 1988 of 2798
- next ›
Network Neutrality Update
NETWORK NEUTRALITY UPDATE....Slowly but surely, support for network neutrality on the internet is eroding:
Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.
At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same — nobody is supposed to jump the line.
....Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.
....Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service.
It's not too surprising that big content companies are quietly changing their tune on this: big companies are usually willing to pay for preferential treatment that helps them keep little guys little, and preferential access to the internet is no different from any other competitive advantage. But if even Lessig is starting to give in on this, the jig might truly be up.
If I had to take a (tentative) stand on this, I'd say that preferential treatment might be justified for things like television and video-on-demand services, which require infrastructure buildout and higher service levels just in order to be competitive. (TV subscribers simply won't put up with standard internet quality of service.) But for ordinary content providers merely looking for an edge over possible upstarts? I think that's as corrosive as Standard Oil locking competitors out of the railroads in the 19th century or Ma Bell prohibiting third party equipment on their lines in the 20th century. We shouldn't put up with it.
Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure how to draw the right distinctions here. Nor, in an environment where network traffic is growing at triple-digit rates but the subscriber base is barely growing at double digit rates, am I sure what incentive the backbone providers have to build additional capacity unless they have some way of charging someone for the additional bandwidth. It's a genuine problem, and I'm not sure what the solution is.
UPDATE: Lessig says the Journal is wrong: his views are the same as they've always been. Long story short, he's OK with network providers offering higher service levels to companies willing to pay for it, but only if they offer the same deal to everyone.
Google responds to the Journal here. They say the only thing they've done is offer to colocate Google-specific caching servers within broadband providers' own facilities. Needless to say, your mileage may vary on whether you think this is a violation of net neutrality.
Regarding Lessig:
Your claim:
"he's OK with network providers offering higher service levels to companies willing to pay for it, but only if they offer the same deal to everyone."
His claim:
"As I testified in 2006, in my view that minimal strategy right now marries the basic principles of "Internet Freedom" first outlined by Chairman Michael Powell, and modified more recently by the FCC, to one additional requirement ? a ban on discriminatory access tiering. While broadband providers should be free, in my view, to price consumer access to the Internet differently ? setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access ? they should not be free to apply discriminatory surcharges to those who make content or applications available on the Internet. As I testified, in my view, such "access tiering" risks creating a strong incentive among Internet providers to favor some companies over others; that incentive in turn tends to support business models that exploit scarcity rather than abundance. If Google, for example, knew if could buy a kind of access for its video content that iFilm couldn't, then it could exploit its advantage to create an even greater disadvantage for its competitors; network providers in turn could deliver on that disadvantage only if the non-privileged service was inferior to the privileged service."
These are not the same.
Kevin,
In a sense, net neutrality is a pipe dream (pardon the pun). ISP's have broadened their own product profiles to include digital television and VoIP services, which inherently require a steadier traffic stream than bursty internet traffic. These telcos and cablecos have implemented QoS protocols for the sensitive traffic that they originate. This only makes sense to me. I don't want my voice call interupted by a youtube streaming video, or even less so my VOD feed.
Businesses have also been getting preferential treatment for their data traffic for years - not mass to masses traffic like youtube or google searches, but company WAN's spanning the country have had virtual circuits carved out of bigger pipes for ages.
What this does mean is that now mass to masses data can be prioritized, thus providing the network owners with a new revenue stream. Right now, internet access is the only way they get revenue from general internet traffic. Perhaps the pricing of traffic will at least lead to lower internet access costs.
That said, I am worried about the loss of the free-spirit of the internet. I think it is a unique experience in human history. As long as the prioritization of the "important traffic" does not lead to the outright blocking of less expensive traffic, then that feeling should remain, even if it means I have to wait another 3-4 seconds for your page to load. I'm not entirely convinced that this is how it will play out, however, which is the source of my worry. This could just be the wedge that leads companies into outright banning of traffic from websites they don't like, or more likely, they will become the targets of boycotting campaigns and the like by activist groups that don't like much of the content currently on the net (porn, gambling, DFH's, you name it). It is better that no one is responsible for deciding what legal content is and isn't fit to be carried by communications companies.
Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. While themselves giving preferential treatment to advertisers who pay more.
People who download movies all day should pay a lot more for the time being.
alter build fiber optic to home networks to handle future loads easily.
Lessig says the assertion that he's changed his position is false: http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html
...unless they have some way of charging someone for the additional bandwidth.
Did I miss the part where they stopped charging people based on how much bandwidth they wanted?
On one hand we have the very real problem of the cementing of monopolies if Net Neutrality goes down, not just for content providers but probably for networks, too.
On the other hand, we have the problem of ISPs not being able to sell new bandwidth, which, if it weren't a complete fantasy, could be solved any number of ways without destroying the internet.
Yeah, what the hell, just another example of how unimportant it is do the will of American people compared to will of corporate American. Looking at Eschaton, it looks like some states need more federal funding just to handle the unemployment claims. Are the American people going to get a bailout, or, perhaps we're to unimportant to matter to anyone in DC at all but I'm tired of giving ground. If this nation does fall into a deep dark depression, and all signs point that way, we're end up passionate hating both Republicans and Democrats in Washington.
(nor) am I sure what incentive the backbone providers have to build additional capacity
Everybody except the Repubtards is shouting about "infrastructure projects", surely this is one of the best, the effing Gold Standard of "infrastructure projects"!
Eh, I've been waiting for this for a long time. It won't be too long before we see pay per data plans like we saw minutes counted by phone companies. I've been stockpiling a digital music and movie library for when just such a time occurs.
...unless they have some way of charging someone for the additional bandwidth.
Did I miss the part where they stopped charging people based on how much bandwidth they wanted?
Ditto. ISPs have already started charging by bandwidth in some places. We've never had bandwidth caps in the US, unlike other countries where you pay by the bit. If I want to stream video I should be willing to pay more than someone who just wants to check email. But I shouldn't pay more if I want to stream it from Netflix than if I want to stream it from Hulu. It's the size not the source. As long as ISPs aren't discriminating by source we keep net neutrality.
Lessig hasn't abandoned net neutrality at all. Paying more for a bigger pipe to your house isn't the same as different rates for different content. Duh.
You can bet that the little guy will suffer from degraded services in ways that cannot be anticipated. Selling the internet to the highest bidder is inherently a bad idea.
Service in the U.S. lags behind the rest of the world. This will put us in even worse straits.
Stanford's Mr. Lessig, for one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. At a conference, he argued that carriers won't become kingmakers so long as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it.
I think this is critical. One does wonder how well the personal/hobby/small vendor sites will work after this is implemented, though.
I am shocked, just shocked, that marketing droids (Kevin) and econ douchebags (Duncan) get this wrong and jump at the wrong conclusion.
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefi...
Apparently, the actual techies say Google isn't doing much more than Akamai does. Put their cache of servers as close to the ISPs as possible. Between that cache and Mountain View is private backbone. Between that cache and your netbox is standard ISP t00bs.
(Perhaps Kevin, this is tells us something about Mike Griffin and Lori Garver. Not sexism, but just the usual idiots getting it wrong and too stupid to realize they're ignorant and need to stand back and listen first.)
(Posted twice because of your idiot moderation system that can't stand two URLs.)
I really don't know what to think about all of this. I do know that the internet hasn't produced a viable revenue model for content providers. Try making money selling advertising on your blog.
Here's the other URL. The first was google's explanation. The second is some other d00d who bothered to keep up with this:
http://bennett.com/blog/2008/12/google-gambles-in-casablanca/
the internet hasn't produced a viable revenue model for content providers
And so they have to f*ck it up for the rest of us?
I don't have a problem with paying more for more bandwidth into my home, but giving preferential treatment to one content provider over the other will always be wrong.
I don't have a problem with paying more for more bandwidth into my home, but giving preferential treatment to one content provider over the other will always be wrong
Apparently you're in vicious agreement with Lessig and Google.
Needless to say, your mileage may vary on whether you think this is a violation of net neutrality.
Those are marketing droid weasel words Kevin.
If you think Lessig and Google are still wrong, we all deserve better than your nonsensical "YMMV" which disparages them without making your stance about their updates clear.
No, Jerry, both Google and Lessig are saying that content providers should be able to buy preferential access. Thersites is saying that end users should be able to buy preferential access. Big difference.
I think Thers is basically right. If you want to download lots of movies, and that uses up lots of bandwidth, there's no reason your ISP shouldn't charge you more. I wouldn't be surprised to see ISPs and backbone providers move to that model over time. Conversely, allowing the content folks to buy better service strikes me as problematic in a lot of ways.
Like I said in the post, I'm not dead set against it, and the issues are kind of tricky. But it's still a distinction worth making very clearly.
Regarding Lessig:
Your claim:
"he's OK with network providers offering higher service levels to companies willing to pay for it, but only if they offer the same deal to everyone."
His claim:
"As I testified in 2006, in my view that minimal strategy right now marries the basic principles of "Internet Freedom" first outlined by Chairman Michael Powell, and modified more recently by the FCC, to one additional requirement a ban on discriminatory access tiering. While broadband providers should be free, in my view, to price consumer access to the Internet differently setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access they should not be free to apply discriminatory surcharges to those who make content or applications available on the Internet. As I testified, in my view, such "access tiering" risks creating a strong incentive among Internet providers to favor some companies over others; that incentive in turn tends to support business models that exploit scarcity rather than abundance. If Google, for example, knew if could buy a kind of access for its video content that iFilm couldn't, then it could exploit its advantage to create an even greater disadvantage for its competitors; network providers in turn could deliver on that disadvantage only if the non-privileged service was inferior to the privileged service."
These are not the same.
Conversely, allowing the content folks to buy better service strikes me as problematic in a lot of ways.
They are not buying better service from the ISPs. Better service in net neutrality terms is that their packets are given preference. They are paying to have their servers located as close as possible to the ISPs servers. They are paying to eliminate the other routers in the middle.
But people have been doing that for as long as there as been as MAE-EAST, MAE-WEST, etc.
Content providers physically moved their entire companies, or their servers to be close to the network pipes.
Colocation and hosting services brag about how close they are to the pipes, and use that to entice you to move your servers to them.
(You may wish to check out where MoJo HQ is, and where MoJo servers are.)
Akamai and Limelight offered these services to anyone who wants to pay for them.
Google is apparently doing nothing that Akamai and Limelight isn't doing, and as Google states, they are making anyone sign exclusive agreements, so any company can ask the ISPs for the same deal.
I think Thers is basically right.
I think Thers is basically right too. Google's claim is that *THEY* think Thers is basically right and are acting accordingly.
They are not buying better service from the ISPs. Better service in net neutrality terms is that their packets are given preference. They are paying to have their servers located as close as possible to the ISPs servers. They are paying to eliminate the other routers in the middle. But they are not paying to give their packets preference in the ISP's routers or in the ISP's t00bs.
Think of it like trucks. Google is paying the ISP to build really big parking lots and then to lease out a corner of that parking lot for Google's trucks. But Google is not paying the ISP for a lane just for Google or preferred by Google on the ISP's tollway. Google is not paying for the ISPs traffic cops to give preferential treatment to Google.
Google wants to lease those parking lots because the traffic in the city is screwed, and so bad that sometimes Google's trucks have to drive to a completely different city first before they finally get to the ISP to get on the ISPs highway.
Google is only paying to park its trucks in the ISPs parking lots and is saying that if Yahoo or iFilm or MoJo or anyone else wants to pay to park there, that's okay.
And Google says there is nothing new about this. That Akamai and Limelight purposely built parking lots right next to the ISPs for this very reason.
Getting to your house is not about where people park.
(This comment is dedicated to Ted Stephens who's metaphor wasn't nearly as inaccurate as was claimed.)
Wow, I'm sick of people getting this issue wrong.
It's not about whether you charge bandwidth consumers for how much they use. No one thinks that's a bad idea (well, no one credible). Downloaders (i.e., fat guys at their computers) buy big downstream pipes and uploaders (i.e., google, amazon, etc) buy big upstream pipes. Not hard to figure out.
When knowledgeable people talk about net neutrality, they're actually talking about the guy in the middle who's trying to double-dip and screw everyone involved. See, he already sold both the uploader and downloader their pipes, either directly or indirectly. Now he wants to charge what amounts to a match-making fee, just to let them meet up. It doesn't matter whether he charges it to the downloader (unlikely anyway) or the uploader -- because the cost will somehow get passed on to the consumer.
This "business strategy" is designed to allow the match-maker to charge an additional tariff while DEPRIORITIZING certain traffic (because most internet traffic now runs at equal priority, for all intents and purposes). So basically, this guy in the middle wants to create a new revenue stream by doing a worse job for the rest of us. This is what passes for innovation, so it's no wonder that we're ranked lower than Djibouti in terms of end-user connectivity.
On top of that, anyone who thinks this won't be used to provide unfair advantage to large/monopolistic companies is just plain dumb.
Read this:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/search/node/net%20neutrality
Corporate rates & Family plans & Individual rates like hotels and airlines use are ways to ensure different prices for the same product to soak up every last dollar that's available without providing the Corpos better service for their high prices and without providing decent service to Individuals for their pittances.
In other words, they'll screw us all in the name of profits which will only worsen the economic mess we're already in.
Nobody seems to learn until they get hurt. Bullies go on and on until knocked down hard.
The network-neutrality debate is only about one thing: censorship.
It has never been about anything else. It cannot be about anything else.
There is definitely a difference between what Google is doing and the sort of geographically-distributed caching Akamai does. Akamai generally fetches content from the original site via the same mechanism that your browser uses, makes a copy of it on their regional servers and serves it up to local customers of the original site, saving the time and cost of fetching it separately for each of them. They use the same "pipe" as everyone else. (Obviously, this sort of service only works for relatively static, un-personalized content.) Even smallish sites can take advantage of Akamai and like services -- it's basically a pay-for-what-you-use service.
What Google is doing, on the other hand, is buying their own private pipe and terminating it remote data centers. This allows them to speed up access to their content not by caching copies (which won't work for personalized content like much of Google's anyway) but by bypassing the public internet entirely for all but the last few hops.
Up to a point I think the latter approach is about as benign as the former (which has been around for more than a decade and has done a lot to make the internet more livable for many people). But when the majority of content flows over private pipes, I think a two-tier system, with small sites increasingly at a disadvantage, is inevitable. "Net neutrality" will still exist, but for a shrinking fraction of the internet.
Net neutrality is a misnomer in this context. Until a company is getting a pay to play deal for their website/traffic or some upstart is getting throttled, the net remains neutral. Google helping out the ISPs with caching really just helps the end user by getting them content/results faster and taking the load of the ISPs. In fact, this should forstall any ISPs wanting to move to infringe on net neutrality because with Google giving them a helping hand they don't have the burden which would make them want to enact restrictions.
Now if we really want to talk about Google and net neutrality we should talk about they're becoming an international MPAA for video and blocking access to certain content in certain countries. THAT I have a problem with.
One thing missing from all this is awareness of why the existing Internet infrastructure is having a difficult time delivering content to all in a reasonable democratic manner that most of us desire.
It isn`t because of the technology but the way the infrastructure has been tied together (the politics of the business models one might say.) A technical difference between circuit switched behavior & packet switched behavior.
(Yea, I know, "ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz..." but it is at the root of this dust up)
In the beginning all telecommunication (telegraph, telephones, stockmarket tickers (data) etc) circuits were hardwired between their end points. You know, copper wires. As the technology advanced there were methods developed to arrange these circuits so that the main components (the hardware between the end points) could be shared to cut down on the investment required to provide services. In the public telephone market this led to human operators (almost all women) connecting callers using plugboard consoles to make and breakdown the circuits between the endpoints (remember Lily Tomlin ?) As things went there was some gaming of this system (no surprise I suppose) for benefit to certain businesses which led to Mr. Almon Strowger (see wikipedia for the story) inventing his switch which began to replace the operators with (very noisy) mechanical devices which were not so easily corruptable as human operators. Automation continued as did technology to substitute for the direct copper wire between the end points such as carrier systems, microwave networks (MCI anyone ?) & TASI (wikipedia again - time-assignment speech interpolation) for example. Still circuit switched technology.
Shifting gears, packet switching (see wikipedia) was developed as a technique to allow for graceful degrading of a communication network constructed from relatively unreliable elements (circuits, nodes, switches etc) that could ensure reliable communication over time. (This is similar to how our brains work BTW.) As most folks have heard this thechnology was developed for the DoD to ensure reliable command & control communications during possible nuclear warfare situations. In this type system each "message" (video, voice whatever) is converted to binary digits (bits), broken up & packaged into a number of packets and then sent out over the network to be delivered to the destination. Each packet can be routed to the destination via a different route depending on conditions w/in the network. Think about this as writing a letter, slicing it up into a number of pieces, placing each of those pieces into a bottle (w/a label on it) & tossing all the bottles into a lake containing "somewhat intelligent" fish and other cretures that "know" how to deliver said bottles to the destination.
Upon the packet switching model was the Internet built.
When the opening up of the Internet to the public happened (Al Gore, NSF etc) there was a rush for "the powers that be" (AT&T, GTE etc) to get into the game. To continue with their old business models (built around a circuit switched model) these bureaucracies forced the packet switched technology into a circuit switched topology (see MAE-East, MAE-West, peering agreements etc) & the federal government went along for similar reasons (their governing models, laws etc, were constructed to deal with circuit switched technology) and thereby developed many bottlenecks in a system that was designed to handle such problems as a manner of course.
Of course there are some technical details left out of this snap shot but the issue of net neutrality comes from the bastardization of the packet switching model to fit the desires of 19th Century bureaucracies.
No surprise eah ?
"...A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the mean time we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long oppressions of enormous public debt...." - Thomas Jefferson
It's all about creating new profit center folks. No more, no less.
New centers are irrestible to the bean counters, no matter what the downstream effects are.
We are seeing that played out in our current financial crisis. Taking down the walls imposed by Glass-Steagal had a totally predicatable outcome because everyone who could was going to maximize profits by creating new profit centers--exotic financial instruments that served only as a way to gamble on outcomes.