Wednesday, December 17, 2014

I just bought a ticket for The Interview

I care about free speech, a lot. Recently, hackers successfully threatened Sony in order to cancel the movie The Interview. Consequently, I just went online and purchased tickets for the movie -- even though Sony has announced they are going to cancel the premier.

Free speech is only partly a government issue ("1st Amendment"). Throughout the world, speech is chilled more by thugs than by police. It could be youth gangs beating up journalists like in Russia, or Islamists killing cartoonists and movie makers. Even in America, we increasingly have a culture that seeks to silence debate, rather than countering bad speech with more speech.

There is action we can take, and it's this: when some are threatened, they should not stand alone. They can't kill, beat up, or dox all of us when we are many. We should draw pictures of Mohamed. We should criticize the despotic rule of Putin. We should buy tickets to The Interview and brag about it online.

What they miss about Uber/Lyft pay

In this story, writer Timothy B. Lee (@binarybits) becomes a Lyft driver for a week. He focuses on the political questions, such as the controversially low pay. He makes the same mistakes that everyone else makes.

Lyft (and Uber) pay can be low for the same reason McDonalds is open at midnight. In absolute terms, McDonalds loses money staying open late. But, when you take into account all the sunk costs for operating during the day, they would lose even more money by not remaining open late. In other words, staying open late is marginally better.

The same is true of Lyft/Uber drivers. I take Uber/UberX on a regular basis and always interview the drivers. Without exception, it's a side business.

This one time, my UberX driver was a college student. He spent his time between pickups studying. When calculating wait-time plus drive-time, he may have been earning minimum wage. However, when calculating just drive-time, he was earning a great wage for a student -- better than other jobs open to students.

Without exception, all the Uber black-car drivers have their own business. They have fixed contracts with companies to drive employees/clients. Or, they have more personal relationships with rich executives, driving them to/from work on a daily basis. They just use Uber to fill in the gaps. They already in invest in the care and maintenance of the black car, and would be sitting around waiting anyway, so anything they earn from Uber is gravy on the top.

I always ask drivers if they derive 100% of their income from Uber/UberX, and (with the exception of the student) they've all said "no". The same is likely true for Lee. It's unlikely he was just sitting in his car staring out into space while waiting for the next pickup. It's more likely that he writing his next Vox piece, or researching his next Bitcoin/Anonymous book.

Some drivers do earn 100% of their incoming from Lyft/UberX -- right now. Drivers tell me of their friends who are only driving temporarily, while hunting for a new job. In other words, while they are working full time at UberX at the moment, it's only a few months out of the year while between other jobs. They've already invested in buying a car and insurance -- rather than these being difficult costs during a period of unemployment, they are benefits.

Leftists wanting to ban unregulated innovation focus on "wages", but that's nonsense. If wages were as bad as claimed, drivers wouldn't be doing it. If drivers had a better alternative, they'd be doing it. Indeed, as I mentioned above, that's what some were doing: driving while looking for better jobs. Thus, the argument that drivers don't earn enough wages is false on its face.

Instead, what's going on is that the "sharing" economy is really the "marginal" economy. You can't report on its as if it's a replacement for a full time job -- you have to report on it as it fits within other jobs or lifestyle. Great marginal wages may suck when compared against full time wages, but that completely misses the point of this innovation.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Notes on the CIA light-torture report

I'm reading through the Senate report on the CIA's light-torture program, and I came across this giggly bit:

#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. The CIA's Office of Public Affairs and senior CIA officials coordinated to share classified information on the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program to select members of the media to counter public criticism, shape public opinion
Of course they did, but then so did the Senate committee itself. They've been selectively leaking bits of the report for over a year. Their description of the "CIA hacking" scandal was completely inaccurate.

Moreover, this Executive Summary wasn't simply published, but given to select people in the media beforehand in order to shape the message.

There's no doubt that the CIA's brutal treatment of prisoners is evil, a stain on the nation's honor, and something that should be prosecuted. But Senator Feinstein and her colleagues are as guilty of this as anybody else. This report is political garbage designed to shield Feinstein from the blame she shares.

All malware defeats 90% of defenses

When the FBI speaks, you can tell they don't know anything about hacking. An example of this quote by Joseph Demarest, the assistant director of the FBI’s cyberdivision:

"The malware that was used would have slipped, probably would have gotten past 90% of the net defenses that are out there today in private industry, and I would challenge to even say government”

He's trying to show how sophisticated, organized, and unprecedented the hackers were.

This is nonsense. All malware defeats 90% of defenses. Hackers need do nothing terribly sophisticated in order to do what they did to Sony.

Take, for example, a pentest we did of a Fortune 500 financial firm. We had some USB drives made with the logo of the corporation we were pen-testing. We grabbed a flash game off the Internet, changed the graphics so that they were punching the logo of their main competitor, and put text in the Final Score screen suggesting "email this to your friends and see what they get". We then added some malware components to it. We then dropped the USB drives in the parking lot.

This gave us everything in the company as people passed the game around. The CEO and many high-level executives ran it on their machines. Sysadmins ran it. Once we got control of the central domain controller, we got access to everything: all files, all emails, ... everything.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we used relatively unsophisticated means to hack an extremely secure company. Crafting malware to get past their anti-virus defenses is trivially easy. Everything we did was easy.

The problem isn't that hackers are sophisticated but that company are insecure. Companies believe that anti-virus stops viruses when it doesn't, for example. The FBI perpetuates this myth, claiming Sony hackers were sophisticated, able to get around anti-virus, when the truth is that Sony relied too much on anti-virus, so even teenagers could get around it.

The FBI perpetuates these myths because they want power. If the problem is sophisticated hackers, then there is nothing you can do to stop them. You are then helpless to defend yourself, so you need the FBI to defend you. Conversely, if the problem is crappy defense, then you you can defend yourself by fixing your defenses.

Update: Here is a previous post where I add a Metasploit exploit to a PDF containing a legal brief that gets past anti-virus.

Friday, December 12, 2014

FYI: Snowden made things worse

Snowden appeared at a #CatoSpyCon, and cited evidence of how things have improved since his disclosures (dislaimer: as Libertarian, I'm a fan of both CATO and Snowden). He cited some pretty compelling graphs, such as a sharp increase of SSL encryption. However, at the moment, I'm pretty sure he's made things worse.

The thing is, governments didn't know such surveillance was possible. Now that Snowden showed what the NSA was doing, governments around the world are following that blueprint, dramatically increasing their Internet surveillance. Not only do they now know how to do it, they are given good justifications. If the United States (the moral leader in "freedoms") says it's okay, then it must be okay for more repressive governments (like France). There is also the sense of competition, that if the NSA knows what's going on across the Internet, then they need to know, too.

This is a problem within the United Sates, too. The NSA collected everyone's phone records over the last 7 years. Before Snowden, that database was accessed rarely, and really for only terrorism purposes. However, now that everyone else in government knows the database exists, they are showing up at the NSA with warrants to get the data. It's not just the FBI, but any department within the government who thinks they have a need for that data (e.g. the IRS). Recently, an amendment was added to the Intelligence Authorization bill to codify the process. We don't have any transparency into this, but it's a good bet that the database has been accessed to retrieve American information more often in the year since Snowden than the 7 years before.

Snowden did the right thing in exposing phone surveillance, of course. My point isn't to say he's wrong. Instead, my point is that we aren't winning the war against surveillance. Activists are focussing on the good news, cherry picking the parts where we win. They are ignoring the bad news, that we are losing the war. The Intelligence Authorization bill is an excellent example of that.

EFF: We've always been at war with EastAsia

As a populist organization, the EFF is frequently Orwellian. That's demonstrated in their recent post about the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace", where they say:

"The Declaration resounds eerily today. We live in an era where net neutrality is threatened by corporations that want to remove competition and force customers to pay more to have equal access to some sites."

This is self-contradictory. The Declaration says, unequivocally, that governments should not regulate cyberspace ("You have no sovereignty where we gather"), and should not make it into a public utility. The current EFF position is exactly the opposite, that government needs to regulate cyberspace as a public utility.

It is like that bit in 1984 where Orwell's government changes allegiances, going from being an ally with Eastasia to becoming their enemy, and then claim that they had always been at war with Eastasia. They made the change in mid-rally. Orwell describes how the mob quickly switched their beliefs, agreeing that they'd always been at war with Eastasia.

When I read 1984, I thought this was a bit over the top, that the mob would not behave so illogically. But we see the EFF mob today acts exactly that way today. The EFF mob truly believes "The Declaration resounds eerily today" despite all evidence to the contrary. That Declaration was about "Governments", yet the EFF mob will now easily believe "we've always been at war against Corporations".

Thursday, November 27, 2014

The Pando Tor conspiracy troll

Tor, also known as The Onion Router, bounces your traffic through several random Internet servers, thus hiding the source. It means you can surf a website without them knowing who you are. Your IP address may appear to be coming from Germany when in fact you live in San Francisco. When used correctly, it prevents eavesdropping by law enforcement, the NSA, and so on. It's used by people wanting to hide their actions from prying eyes, from political dissidents, to CIA operatives, to child pornographers.

Recently, Pando (an Internet infotainment site) released a story accusing Tor of being some sort of government conspiracy.

This is nonsense, of course. Pando's tell-all exposé of the conspiracy contains nothing that isn't already widely known. We in the community have long joked about this. We often pretend there is a conspiracy in order to annoy uptight Tor activists like Jacob Appelbaum, but we know there isn't any truth to it. This really annoys me -- how can I troll about Tor's government connections when Pando claims there's actually truth to the conspiracy?

The military and government throws research money around with reckless abandon. That no more means they created Tor than it means they created the Internet back in the 1970s. A lot of that research is pure research, intended to help people. Not everything the military funds is designed to kill people.

There is no single "government". We know, for example, that while some in government paid Jacob Appelbaum's salary, others investigated him for his Wikileaks connections. Different groups are often working at cross purposes -- even within a single department.

A lot of people have ties to the government, including working for the NSA. The NSA isn't some secret police designed to spy on Americans, so a lot of former NSA employees aren't people who want to bust privacy. Instead, most NSA employees are sincere in making the world a better place -- which includes preventing evil governments from spying on dissidents. As Snowden himself says, the NSA is full of honest people doing good work for good reasons. (That they've overstepped their bounds is a problem -- but that doesn't mean they are the devil).

Tor is based on open code and math. It really doesn't matter what conspiracy lies behind it, because we can see the code. It's like BitCoin -- we know there is a secret conspiracy behind it, with the secretive Satoshi Nakamoto owning a billion dollars worth of the coins. But that still doesn't shake our faith in the code and the math.

Dissidents use Tor -- successfully. We know that because the dissidents are still alive. Even if it's a secret conspiracy by the U.S. government, it still does what its supporters want, helping dissidents fight oppressive regimes. In any case, Edward Snowden, who had access to NSA secrets, trusts his own life to Tor.

Tor doesn't work by magic. I mention this because the Pando article lists lots of cases where Tor failed to protect people. The reasons were unlikely to have been flaws in Tor itself, but appear to have been other more natural causes. For example, the Silk Road server configuration proves it was open to the Internet as well as through Tor, a rookie mistake that revealed its location. The perfect concealment system can't work if you sometimes ignore it. It's like blaming the Pill for not preventing pregnancy because you took it only on some days but not others. Thus, for those of us who know technically how things work, none of the cases cited by Pando shake our trust in Tor.

I'm reasonably technical. I've read the Tor spec (though not the code). I play with things like hostile exit nodes. I fully know Tor's history and ties to the government. I find nothing in the Pando article that is credible, and much that is laughable. I suppose I'm guilty of getting trolled by this guy, but seriously, Pando pretends not to be a bunch of trolls, so maybe this deserves a response.

Monday, November 24, 2014

That wraps it up for end-to-end

The defining feature of the Internet back in 1980 was "end-to-end", the idea that all the intelligence was on the "ends" of the network, and not in middle. This feature is becoming increasingly obsolete.

This was a radical design at the time. Big corporations and big government still believed in the opposite model, with all the intelligence in big "mainframe" computers at the core of the network. Users would just interact with "dumb terminals" on the ends.

The reason the Internet was radical was the way it gave power to the users. Take video phones, for example. AT&T had been promising this since the 1960s, as the short segment in "2001 A Space Odyssey" showed. However, getting that feature to work meant replacing all the equipment inside the telephone network. Telephone switches would need to know the difference between a normal phone call and a video call. Moreover, there could be only one standard, world wide, so that calling Japan or Europe would work with their video telephone systems. Users were powerless to develop video calling on their own -- they would have to wait for the big telcom monopolies to develop it, however long it took.

That changed with the Internet. The Internet carries packets without knowing their content. Video calling with Facetime or Skype or LINE is just an app, from your iPhone or Android or PC. People keep imagining new applications for the Internet every day, and implement them, without having to change anything in core Internet routing hardware.

I've used Facetime, Skype, and LINE to talk to people in Japan. That's because there is no real international standard for video calling. Each person I call requires me to install whichever app they are using. Traditional thinking is that government ought to create standards, so that every app would be compatible with every other app, so that I could Skype from Windows to somebody's iPhone using Facetime. This tradition is nonsense. If we waited for government standards, it'd take forever. Teenagers who heavily use video today would be grown up with kids of their own before government got around to creating the right standard. Lack of standards means freedom to innovate.

Such freedom was almost not the case. You may have heard of something called the "OSI 7 Layer Model". Everything you know about that model is wrong. It was an attempt by Big Corporations and Big Government to enforce their model of core-centric networking. It demanded such things as a "connection oriented network protocol", meaning smart routers rather than the dumbs ones we have today. It demanded that applications be standardized, so that there would be only one video conferencing standard, for example. Governments in US, Japan, and Europe mandated that the computers they bought supporting OSI conformant protocols. (The Internet's TCP/IP protocols do not conform to the OSI model.) Such rules were on the book through into the late 1990s dot-com era, when many in government still believed that the TCP/IP Internet was just a brief experiment on the way to a Glorious Government OSI Internetwork.

The Internet did have standards, of course, but they were developed in the opposite manner. Individuals innovated first, on the ends of the network, developing apps. Only when such apps became popular did they finally get documented as a "standard'. In other words, Internet standards we more de facto than de jure. People innovated first, on their own ends of the network, and the infrastructure and standards caught up later.

But here's the thing: the Internet ideal of end-to-end isn't perfect, either. There are reasons why not all innovation happens on the ends.

Take your home network as an example. The way your home likely works is that you have a single home router with cable/fiber/DSL on one side talking to the Internet, and WiFi on the other side talking to the devices in your home. Attached to your router you have a desktop computer, a couple notebooks, an iPad, your phones, an Xbox/Playstation, and your TV.

In the true end-to-end model, all these devices would be on the Internet directly -- that they could be "pinged" from the Internet. In today's reality, though, that's not the way things work. Your home router is a firewall. It blocks incoming connections, so that devices in your home can connect outwards, but nothing on the Internet can connect inwards. This fundamentally breaks the ideal of end-to-end, as a smart device sits in the network controlling access to the ends.

This is done for two reasons. The first is security, so that hackers can't hack the devices in your home. Blocking inbound traffic blocks 99% of hacker attacks against devices.

The second reason for smart home routers is the well-known limitation on Internet addresses: there are only 4 billion of them. However, there are more than 4 billion devices connected to the Internet. This fix this, your home router does address translation. Your router has only a single public Internet address. All the devices in your home have private addresses that wouldn't work on the Internet. As packets flow in/out of your home, your router transparently changes the private addresses in the packets into the single public address.

Thus, when you google "what's my IP address", you'll get a different address than your local machine. Your machine will have a private address like 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x, but servers on the Internet won't see that -- they'll see the public address you've been assigned by your ISP.

According to Gartner, nearly billion smarthphones were sold in 2013. These are all on the Internet. That represents a quarter of the Internet address space used up in only a single year. Yet, virtually none of them are assigned real Internet addresses. Almost all of them are behind address translators -- not the small devices like you have in your home, but massive translators that can handle millions of simultaneous devices.

The consequence is this: there are more devices with private addresses, that must go through translators, than there are devices with public addresses. In other words, less than 50% of the Internet is end-to-end.

The "address space exhaustion" of tradition Internet addresses inspired an update to the protocol to use larger addresses, known as IPv6. It uses 128-bit addresses, or 4 billion times 4 billion times 4 billion times 4 billion. This is enough to assign a unique address to all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. It's enough to restore end-to-end access to every device on the Internet, times billions and billlions.

My one conversation with Vint Cerf (one of the key Internet creators) was over this address space issue. Back in 1992, every Internet engineer knew for certain that the Internet would run out of addresses by around the year 2000. Every engineer knew this would cause the Internet to collapse. At the IETF meeting, I tried to argue otherwise. I used the Simon-Ehrlich Wager as an analogy. Namely, the 4 billion addresses weren't a fixed resource, because we would become increasingly efficient at using them. For example, "dynamic" addresses would use space more efficiently, and translation would reuse addresses.

Cerf's response was the tautology "but that would break the end-to-end principle".

Well, yes, but no such principle should be a straightjacket. The end-to-end principle is already broken by hackers. Even with IPv6, when all your home devices have a public rather than private address on the Internet, you still want a firewall breaking the end-to-end principle blocking inbound connections. Once you've decided to firewall a network, it no longer matters whether it's using IPv6 or address translation of private addresses. Indeed, address translation is better for firewalling, as it defaults to "fail close". That means if a failure occurs, all communication is blocked. With IPv6, firewalls become "fail open", where failures allow communication to continue.

Firewalls are only the start in breaking end-to-end. It's the "cloud" where we see a radical reversion back to old principles.

Your phone is no longer a true "end" of the network. Sure, your phone has a powerful processor that's faster than supercomputers of the last decade, but that power is used primarily for display not for computation. Your data and computation is instead done in the cloud. Indeed, when you lose or destroy your phone, you simply buy a new one and "restore" it form the cloud.

Thus, we are right back to the old world of smart core network with "mainframes", and "dumb terminals" on the ends. That your phone has supercomputer power doesn't matter -- it still does just what it's told by the cloud.

But the last nail in the coffin to the "end-to-end" principle is the idea of "net neutrality". While many claim it's a technical concept, it's just a meaningless political slogan. Congestion is an inherent problem of the Internet, and no matter how objectively you try to solve it, it'll end up adversely affecting somebody -- somebody who will then lobby politicians to rule in their favor. The Comcast-NetFlix issue is a good example where the true technical details are at odds with the way this congestion issue has been politicized. Things like "fast-lanes" are everywhere, from content-delivery-networks to channelized cable/fiber. Rhetoric creates political distinctions among various "fast-lanes" when there are no technical distinctions.

This politicization of the Internet ends the personal control over the Internet that was promised by end-to-end. Instead of being able to act first and asking for forgiveness later, you must first wait for permission from Big Government. Instead of being able to create your own services, you must wait for Big Corporations (the only ones that can afford lawyers to lobby government) to deliver those services to you.


We aren't going to regress completely to the days of mainframes, of course, but we've given up much of the territory of individualistic computing. In some ways, this is a good thing. I don't want to manage my own data, losing it when a hard drive crashes because I forgot to back it up. In other ways, it's a bad thing. The more we regulate the Internet to insure good things, the more we stop innovations that don't fit within our preconceived notions. Worse, the more it's regulated, the more companies have to invest in lobbying the government for favorable regulation, rather than developing new technology..

Monday, November 10, 2014

Don't mistake masturbation for insight [NOT SAFE FOR WORK]

Stroking prejudices isn't insight. I mention this because people keep sending me this Oatmeal cartoon that does nothing but furiously stroke its supporters until they ejaculate all over the screen.

The comic claims NetNeutrality is a bipartisan issue. By bipartisan it means that Democrats and the Green Party overwhelming support it. The comic is certainly not referring to Republicans, who overwhelming oppose NetNeutrality, as any googling of "republican net neutrality" would demonstrate. I suspect the problem here is that Oatmeal readers are in a filter-bubble (a technical term for "sitting in a circle jerking each other off") and therefore don't seriously believe Republicans exist.

The comic seriously says this: support for NetNeutrality is bipartisan, but opposition is partisan. I suspect they like words like "shit smear" because they are so accustomed to having their heads up their own asses.

The Oatmeal claims NetNeutrality won't mean the feds can dictate how much your ISP charges. I suspect that's because the comic's fingering of his own ass distracts him from reading. Obama's proposal today is to reclassify the Internet as a common-carrier under section II of the Telecommunication's Act. Luckily, we have something called the "Internet" were we can immediately click on a link and read the fucking act, which starts with "Service and Charges", declaring that the government can indeed outlaw charges it deems "unreasonable". Obama acknowledges this in his speech, saying that while Title II puts the Internet in the hands of the FCC so that they can dictate prices, they should "forbear" from doing so.

The Oatmeal shows a graph as "proof" that Comcast was "throttling" Netflix traffic. But all the data comes from Netflix -- a highly biased source. Moreover, the graph doesn't show throttling -- it shows how Netflix's rapid growth has overloaded interconnection points. On relevant links, the amount of Netflix traffic exceeds all other traffic combined. Some companies are willing pay to upgrade the links and let Netflix free-ride. Others refuse to put up with nonsense, and want Netflix to pay for its own traffic. Seriously, not even Netflix claims Comcast is "throttling" its content. I suspect the Oatmeal picked that that word out of thin air because its reference to auto-asphyxiation gets its readers off.

The premise of the Oatmeal cartoon is that Ted Cruz is stupid, unlike its readers who are good looking, special, and just cleverer than everybody else. It pretends to use simple language to explain an obvious issue so that even a mere politician can understand. Only, it gets things fundamentally wrong. NetNeutrality is just a political slogan. Slogans don't work, laws do -- and here's the thing: NetNeutrality isn't currently the law. There is nothing now, nor has there ever been, anything stopping a company like Comcast from doing the evil scenarios outlined in the comic. And indeed, some companies do block things like that. I suspect that if the writer of the Oatmeal comic stopped admiring his cock in the mirror long enough to actually read something, he'd know more about whether NetNeutrality rules were actually in force, or how Title II works.

Ted Cruz's tweet isn't bad. Obamacare is an apt (albeit exaggerated) analogy for a change that heaps tons of regulation on an industry. However, it is the same sort of mutual masturbation. If you hate Obamacare, you'll hate NetNeutrality regulation. If you love Obamacare, you'll love NetNeutrality. Thus, Cruz's tweet is there just to stroke his supporters, rather than change minds.

Please please please, in the future when you think you have something clever to say, don't link me an Oatmeal cartoon. Neither it nor you are as smart as you think. Even Ted Cruz is smarter.

This Vox NetNeutrality article is wrong

There is no reasoned debate over NetNeutrality because the press is so biased. An example is this article by Timothy B. Lee at Vox "explaining" NetNeutrality. It doesn't explain, it advocates.

1. Fast Lanes

Fast-lanes have been an integral part of the Internet since the beginning. Whenever somebody was unhappy with their speeds, they paid money to fix the problem. Most importantly, Facebook pays for fast-lanes, contrary to the example provided.

One prominent example of fast-lanes is "channels" in the local ISP network to avoid congestion. This allows them to provide VoIP and streaming video over their own private TCP/IP network that won't be impacted by the congestion that everything else experiences. That's why during prime-time (7pm to 10pm), your NetFlix streams are low-def (to reduce bandwidth), while your cable TV video-on-demand are hi-def.

Historically, these channels were all "MPEG-TS", transport streams based on the MPEG video standard. Even your Internet packets would be contained inside the MPEG streams on channels.

Today, the situation is usually reversed. New fiber-optic services have TCP/IP network everywhere, putting MPEG streams on top of TCP/IP. They just separate the channels into their private TCP/IP network that doesn't suffer congestion (for voice and video-on-demand), and the public Internet access that does. Their services don't suffer congestion, other people's services do.

The more important fast-lanes are known as "content delivery networks" or "CDNs". These companies pay ISPs to co-locate servers on their network, putting servers in every major city. Companies like Facebook then pay the CDNs to host their data.

If you monitor your traffic, you'll see that the vast majority goes to CDNs located in your city. When you access different, often competing companies like Facebook and Apple, your traffic may in fact go to the same IP address of the CDN server.

Smaller companies that cannot afford CDNs most host their content in just a couple locations. Since these locations are thousands of miles from most of their customers, access is slower than CDN hosted content like Facebook. Pay-for-play has, with preferred and faster access, has been an integral part of the Internet since the very beginning.

This demonstrates that the Vox example of Facebook is a complete lie. Their worst-case scenario already exists, and has existed since before the dot-com era even started, and has enabled competition and innovation rather than hindering it.

2. Innovation

Vox claims: "Advocates say the neutrality of the internet is a big reason there has been so much online innovation over the last two decades".

No, it's opponents who claim the lack of government regulation is the reason there has been so much online innovation in the last decades.

NetNeutality means sweeping government regulation that forces companies to ask permission first before innovating. NetNeutrality means spending money lobbying for government for special rules, surviving or failing based on the success of paying off politicians rather than surviving or failing based on the own merits.

Take GoGo Inflight broadband Internet service on airplanes. They block NetFlix in favor of their own video streaming service. This exactly the sort of thing that NetNeutrality regulations are supposed to block. However, it's technically necessary. A single person streaming video form NetFlix would overload the connection for everyone else. To satisfy video customers, GoGo puts servers on the plane for its streaming service -- allowing streaming without using the Internet connection to the ground.

If NetNeutrality became law, such things would be banned. But of course, since that would kill Internet service on airplanes, the FCC would immediately create rules to allow this. But then everyone would start lobbying the FCC for their own exceptions. In the end, you'd have the same thing with every other highly regulated industry, where companies with the most lobbying dollars win.

Innovation happens because companies innovate first and ask for permission (or forgiveness) later. A few years ago, Comcast throttled BitTorrent traffic during prime time. NetNeutrality proponents think this is bad, and use it as an example of why we need regulation. But no matter how bad it is, it's a healthy sign of innovation. Not all innovations are good, sometimes companies will try things, realize they are bad, then stop doing them. Under NetNeutrality regulations, nothing bad will happen ever again, because government regulators won't allow it. But that also means good innovations won't happen either -- companies won't be able to freely try them out without regulators putting a stop to it.

Right now, you can start a company like Facebook without spending any money lobbying the government. In the NetNeutrality future, that will no longer be possible. A significant amount of investor money will go toward lobbying the government for favorable regulation, to ask permission.

3. What's Taking So Long

Vox imagines that NetNeutality is such a good idea that the only thing stopping it is technicalities.

The opposite is true. The thing stopping NetNeutrality is that it's a horrible idea that kills innovation. It's not a technical idea, but a political one. It's pure left-wing wing politics that demands the government run everything. The thing stopping it is right-wing politics that wants the free-market to run things.

The refusal of Vox to recognize that this is a left-wing vs. right-wing debate demonstrates their overwhelming political bias on this issue.

4. FCC Bypassing Congress

The Internet is new and different. If regulating it like a utility is a good idea, then it's Congress who should pass a law to do this.

What Obama wants to do is bypass congress and seize control of the Internet himself.

5. Opponent's arguments

Vox gets this partly right, but fundamentally wrong.

The fundamental argument by opponents is that nothing bad is happening now. None of the evil scenarios of what might happen are actually happening now.

Sure, sometimes companies do bad things, but the market immediately corrects. That's the consequence of permission-free innovation: innovate first, and ask for permission (or forgiveness) later. That sometimes companies have to ask for forgiveness is a good sign.

Let's wait until Comcast actually permanently blocks content, or charges NetFlix more than other CDNs, or any of the other hypothetical evils, then let's start talking about the government taking control.

6. Red Tape

Strangling with red-tape isn't a binary proposition.

What red-tape means is that network access becomes politicized, as only those with the right political connections get to act. What red-tape means is that only huge corporations can afford the cost. If you like a world dominated by big, connected corporations, then you want NetNeutrality regulations.

While it won't strangle innovation, it'll drastically slow it down.

7. YouTube

Vox claims that startups like YouTube would have difficulty getting off the ground with NetNeutrality regulation. The opposite is true: companies like YouTube would no longer be able to get off the ground without lobbying the government for permission.

8. Level Playing Field

Vox description of the NetFlix-Comcast situation is completely biased on wrong, taking NetFlix's and leftist description at face value. It's not true.

Descriptions of the NetFlix-Comcast issue completely ignore the technical details, but the technical details matter. For one thing, it doesn't stream "across the Internet". The long-distance links between cities cannot support that level of traffic. Instead, NetFlix puts servers in every major city to stream from. These servers are often co-located in the same building as Comcast's major peering points.

In other words, what we are often talking about is how to get video streaming from NetFlix servers from one end of a building to another.

During prime time (7pm to 10pm), NetFlix's bandwidth requirements are many times greater than all non-video traffic put together. That essentially means that companies like Comcast have to specially engineer their networks just to handle NetFlix. So far, NetFlix has been exploiting loopholes in "peering agreements" designed for non-video traffic in order to get a free ride.

Re-architecting the Internet to make NetFlix work requires a lot of money. Right now, those costs are born by all Comcast subscribers -- even those who don't watch NetFlix. The 90% of customers with low-bandwidth needs are subsidizing those 10% who watch NetFlix at prime time. We like to think of Comcast as having monopolistic power, but it doesn't. The truth is that Comcast has very little power in pricing. It can't meter traffic, charging those who abuse the network during prime time to account for their costs. Thus, instead of charging NetFlix abusers directly, it just passes its costs to NetFlix.

Converting the Internet into a public-utility wouldn't change this. It simply means that instead of fighting in the market place, the Comcast-NetFlix battle would be decided by regulators. And, the result of the decision would be whichever company did the best job lobbying the FCC and paying off politicians -- which would probably be Comcast.

Tuesday, November 04, 2014

Voters are jerks

Out and about today, jerks are proudly displaying a "I Voted!" sticker. My twitter feed is likewise full of people proudly declaring they voted. They only serve to perpetuate the problem.

Most voted for incumbents, while spending the rest of the year bitching about how bad the incumbents are.

Most base their voting on vapid political rhetoric, rather than understanding the issues. Their political analysis comes from late night comedians rather than serious sources. Those like Vox or the Economist do a good job with analysis, but of course, few read them because that would require thinking. It's much easier watching Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert and laugh about how stupid other people are.

Though, understanding the issues is really just a smokescreen. What people really vote for is to take money from other groups and give it to themselves. They mask it in issues like national defense or the environment, but it's really just a money grab.

People proudly vote in this election, where few contests are competitive. These same people ignored the primaries, where their votes could have made a difference.

People waste their vote on major parties. Frankly, we live in a one Party state with two factions, where the factions share power and collude to exclude outsiders. People proudly claim to support democracy while voting for the Parties that subvert it.

You might proudly display a "I Voted" sticker today, but I think you are just a douchebag.