This op-ed by a "net neutrality expert" claims the FCC has always defended "net neutrality". It's garbage.
This wrong on its face. It imagines decades ago that the FCC inshrined some plaque on the wall stating principles that subsequent FCC commissioners have diligently followed. The opposite is true. FCC commissioners are a chaotic bunch, with different interests, influenced (i.e. "lobbied" or "bribed") by different telecommunications/Internet companies. Rather than following a principle, their Internet regulatory actions have been ad hoc and arbitrary -- for decades.
Sure, you can cherry pick some of those regulatory actions as fitting a "net neutrality" narrative, but most actions don't fit that narrative, and there have been gross net neutrality violations that the FCC has ignored.
Showing posts with label NetNeutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NetNeutrality. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
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 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.
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, September 23, 2014
EFF, Animal Farm version
Orwell wrote Animal Farm at the height of World War II, when the Soviet Union was our ally against Germany, and where Stalin was highly regarded by intellectuals. The book attacks Stalin's cult of personality, showing how populist "propaganda controls the opinion of enlightened in democratic countries". In the book, populist phrases like "All animals are equal" over time get amended with such things as "...but some animals are more equal than others".
The hero worship geeks have for the EFF is a modern form of that cult of personality. Computer geeks unquestioningly support the EFF, even when the EFF contradicts themselves. There are many examples, such as supporting coder's rights while simultaneously attacking "unethical" coders. The best example, though, is NetNeutrality, where the EFF wants the government to heavily regulate Internet providers like Comcast. This is a complete repudiation of the EFF's earlier position set forth in their document "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace".
So I thought I'd amend that document with updated EFF rhetoric:
- You [governments] are not welcome among us, but corporations are even less welcome.
- You have
nosome sovereignty where we gather. - You have no moral right to rule us to excess.
- We did not invite you then, but we invite you now.
Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project.Thanks for building cyberspace, now please run it like a public utility.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
What they claim about NetNeutrality is a lie
The EFF and other activists are promoting NetNeutrality in response the to FCC's request for comment. What they tell you is a lie. I thought I’d write up the major problems with their arguments.
Proponents claim they are trying to “save” NetNeutrality and preserve the status quo. This is a bald-faced lie.
The truth is that NetNeutrality is not now, nor has it ever been, the law. Fast-lanes have always been the norm. Most of your network traffic goes through fast-lanes (“CDNs”), for example.
The NPRM (the FCC request for comments we are all talking about here) quite clearly says: "Today, there are no legally enforceable rules by which the Commission can stop broadband providers from limiting Internet openness".
NetNeutrality means a radical change, from the free-market Internet we’ve had for decades to a government regulated utility like electricity, water, and sewer. If you like how the Internet has been running so far, then you should oppose the radical change to NetNeutrality.
Proponents claim there is something “technical” about NetNeutrality, that the more of a geek/nerd you are, the more likely you are to support it. They claim NetNeutrality supporters have some sort of technical authority on the issue. This is a lie.
The truth is that NetNeutrality is pure left-wing dogma. That’s why the organizations supporting it are all well-known left-wing organizations, like Greenpeace, Daily Kos, and the EFF. You don’t see right-wing or libertarian organizations on the list supporting today’s protest. In contrast, other issues like the "SOPA blackout" and protests against the NSA enjoy wide bi-partisan support among right-wing, libertarian, and left-wing groups.
Your support of NetNeutrality correlates with your general political beliefs, not with your technical skill. One of the inventors of TCP/IP is Vint Cerf who supports NetNeutrality – and a lot of other left-wing causes. Another inventor is Bob Kahn, who opposes NetNeutrality and supports libertarian causes.
NetNeutrality is a political slogan only. It has as much technical meaning has "Hope and Change". Ask 10 people what the phrase technically means and you'll get 13 answers.
The only case where NetNeutrality correlates with technical knowledge is among those geeks who manage networks – and it’s an inverse correlation (they oppose it). That’s because they want technologists and not politicians deciding how to route packets.
Proponents claim that fast-lanes for some will mean slow-lanes for everyone else. The opposite is true – the Internet wouldn’t work without fast lanes, because they shunt high-volume traffic off expensive long-distance links.
The fundamental problem with the Internet is the “tragedy of the commons” where a lot of people freeload off the system. This discourages investment needed to speed things up. Charging people for fast-lanes fixes this problem – it charges those willing to pay for faster speeds in order to invest in making the Internet faster. Everyone benefits – those in the new fast-lane, and those whose slow-lanes become less congested.
This is proven by “content delivery networks” or “CDNs”, which are the most common form of fast lanes. (Proponents claim that CDNs aren’t the fast lanes they are talking about, but that too is a lie). Most of your network traffic doesn’t go across long-distance links to place like Silicon Valley. Instead, most of it goes to data centers in your local city to these CDNs. Companies like Apple and Facebook maintain their own CDNs, others like Akamai and Lightspeed charge customers the privilege to be hosted on their CDNs. CDNs are the very essence of fast lanes, and the Internet as we know it wouldn’t happen without them.
NetNeutrality proponents claim bad things will happen in the future. These are lies, made-up stories designed to frighten you. You know they are made-up stories because NetNeutrality has never been the law, and the scary scenarios haven’t come to pass.
The left-wingers may be right, and maybe the government does indeed need to step in and regulate the Internet like a utility. But, we should wait for problems that arise and fix them – not start regulating to prevent bad things that would never actually occur. It’s the regulation of unlikely scenarios that is most likely to kill innovation on the future Internet. Today, corporations innovate first and ask forgiveness later, which is a far better model than having to ask a government bureaucrat whether they are allowed to proceed – then proceeding anyway by bribing or lobbying the bureaucrats.
Proponents claim that a few bad things have already happened. This is a lie, because they are creating a one-sided description of events.
For example, a few years ago, Comcast filtered BitTorrent traffic in a clear violation of NetNeutrality ideals. This was simply because the network gets overloaded during peak hours (5pm to 9pm) and BitTorrent users don’t particularly care about peak hours. Thus, by slowing down BitTorrent during peak hours, Comcast improved the network for everyone without inconveniencing BitTorrent users. It was a win-win solution to the congestion problem.
NetNeutrality activists hated the solution. Their furor caused Comcast to change their policy, no longer filtering BitTorrent, but imposing a 250gig bandwidth cap on all their users instead. This was a lose-lose solution, both BitTorrent users and Comcasts normal customers hated the solution – but NetNeutrality activists accepted it.
NetNeutrality activists describe the problem as whether or not Comcast should filter BitTorrent, as if filtering/not-filtering where the only two choices. That's a one-sided description of the problem. Comcast has a peak-hour congestion problem. The choices are to filter BitTorrent, impose bandwidth caps, bill by amount downloaded, bill low-bandwidth customers in order subsidize high-bandwidth customers, cause all customers to suffer congestion, and so on. By giving a one-sided description of the problem, NetNeutrality activists make it look like Comcast was evil for choosing a bad solution to the problem, but in truth, all alternatives are bad.
A similar situation is the dispute between NetFlix and Comcast. NetFlix has been freeloading off the system, making the 90% of low-bandwidth customers subsidize the 10% who do streaming video. Comcast is trying to make those who do streaming to pay for the costs involved. They are doing so by making NetFlix use CDNs like all other heavy users of the network. Activists take a very narrow view of this, casting Comcast as the bad guy, but any technical analysis of the situation shows that NetFlix is the bad guy freeloading on the system, and Comcast is the good guy putting a stop to it.
Companies like Comcast must solve technical problems. NetNeutrality deliberately distorts the description of the problems in order to make corporations look evil. Comcast certainly has monopolies in big cities on broadband (above 10mbps) Internet and we should distrust them, but the above examples were decided on technical grounds, not on rent-seeking monopolist grounds.
I’m not trying to sway your opinion on NetNeutrality, though of course it’s quite clear I oppose it. Instead, I’m trying to prove that the activists protesting today are liars. NetNeutrality isn’t the status quo or the current law, it’s not being “saved”. NetNeutrality is pure left-wing politics, not technical, and activists have no special technical authority on the issue. Fast-lanes are how the Internet works, they don’t cause slow-lanes for everyone else. The activists stories of future doom are designed to scare you and aren’t realistic, and their stories of past problems are completely distorted.
Frankly, activists are dishonest with themselves, as shown in the following tweet. In their eyes, Comcast is evil and "all about profits" because they lobby against NetNeutrality, while NetFlix is arresponsible/good company because they support NetNeutrality. But of course, we all know that NetFlix is likewise "all about profits", and their support for NetNeutrality is purely because they will profit by it.
“Save NetNeutrality”
The truth is that NetNeutrality is not now, nor has it ever been, the law. Fast-lanes have always been the norm. Most of your network traffic goes through fast-lanes (“CDNs”), for example.
The NPRM (the FCC request for comments we are all talking about here) quite clearly says: "Today, there are no legally enforceable rules by which the Commission can stop broadband providers from limiting Internet openness".
NetNeutrality means a radical change, from the free-market Internet we’ve had for decades to a government regulated utility like electricity, water, and sewer. If you like how the Internet has been running so far, then you should oppose the radical change to NetNeutrality.
“NetNeutrality is technical”
Proponents claim there is something “technical” about NetNeutrality, that the more of a geek/nerd you are, the more likely you are to support it. They claim NetNeutrality supporters have some sort of technical authority on the issue. This is a lie.
The truth is that NetNeutrality is pure left-wing dogma. That’s why the organizations supporting it are all well-known left-wing organizations, like Greenpeace, Daily Kos, and the EFF. You don’t see right-wing or libertarian organizations on the list supporting today’s protest. In contrast, other issues like the "SOPA blackout" and protests against the NSA enjoy wide bi-partisan support among right-wing, libertarian, and left-wing groups.
Your support of NetNeutrality correlates with your general political beliefs, not with your technical skill. One of the inventors of TCP/IP is Vint Cerf who supports NetNeutrality – and a lot of other left-wing causes. Another inventor is Bob Kahn, who opposes NetNeutrality and supports libertarian causes.
NetNeutrality is a political slogan only. It has as much technical meaning has "Hope and Change". Ask 10 people what the phrase technically means and you'll get 13 answers.
The only case where NetNeutrality correlates with technical knowledge is among those geeks who manage networks – and it’s an inverse correlation (they oppose it). That’s because they want technologists and not politicians deciding how to route packets.
“Fast lanes will slow down the Internet”
Proponents claim that fast-lanes for some will mean slow-lanes for everyone else. The opposite is true – the Internet wouldn’t work without fast lanes, because they shunt high-volume traffic off expensive long-distance links.
The fundamental problem with the Internet is the “tragedy of the commons” where a lot of people freeload off the system. This discourages investment needed to speed things up. Charging people for fast-lanes fixes this problem – it charges those willing to pay for faster speeds in order to invest in making the Internet faster. Everyone benefits – those in the new fast-lane, and those whose slow-lanes become less congested.
This is proven by “content delivery networks” or “CDNs”, which are the most common form of fast lanes. (Proponents claim that CDNs aren’t the fast lanes they are talking about, but that too is a lie). Most of your network traffic doesn’t go across long-distance links to place like Silicon Valley. Instead, most of it goes to data centers in your local city to these CDNs. Companies like Apple and Facebook maintain their own CDNs, others like Akamai and Lightspeed charge customers the privilege to be hosted on their CDNs. CDNs are the very essence of fast lanes, and the Internet as we know it wouldn’t happen without them.
“Bad things will happen”
NetNeutrality proponents claim bad things will happen in the future. These are lies, made-up stories designed to frighten you. You know they are made-up stories because NetNeutrality has never been the law, and the scary scenarios haven’t come to pass.
The left-wingers may be right, and maybe the government does indeed need to step in and regulate the Internet like a utility. But, we should wait for problems that arise and fix them – not start regulating to prevent bad things that would never actually occur. It’s the regulation of unlikely scenarios that is most likely to kill innovation on the future Internet. Today, corporations innovate first and ask forgiveness later, which is a far better model than having to ask a government bureaucrat whether they are allowed to proceed – then proceeding anyway by bribing or lobbying the bureaucrats.
“Bad things have happened”
Proponents claim that a few bad things have already happened. This is a lie, because they are creating a one-sided description of events.
For example, a few years ago, Comcast filtered BitTorrent traffic in a clear violation of NetNeutrality ideals. This was simply because the network gets overloaded during peak hours (5pm to 9pm) and BitTorrent users don’t particularly care about peak hours. Thus, by slowing down BitTorrent during peak hours, Comcast improved the network for everyone without inconveniencing BitTorrent users. It was a win-win solution to the congestion problem.
NetNeutrality activists hated the solution. Their furor caused Comcast to change their policy, no longer filtering BitTorrent, but imposing a 250gig bandwidth cap on all their users instead. This was a lose-lose solution, both BitTorrent users and Comcasts normal customers hated the solution – but NetNeutrality activists accepted it.
NetNeutrality activists describe the problem as whether or not Comcast should filter BitTorrent, as if filtering/not-filtering where the only two choices. That's a one-sided description of the problem. Comcast has a peak-hour congestion problem. The choices are to filter BitTorrent, impose bandwidth caps, bill by amount downloaded, bill low-bandwidth customers in order subsidize high-bandwidth customers, cause all customers to suffer congestion, and so on. By giving a one-sided description of the problem, NetNeutrality activists make it look like Comcast was evil for choosing a bad solution to the problem, but in truth, all alternatives are bad.
A similar situation is the dispute between NetFlix and Comcast. NetFlix has been freeloading off the system, making the 90% of low-bandwidth customers subsidize the 10% who do streaming video. Comcast is trying to make those who do streaming to pay for the costs involved. They are doing so by making NetFlix use CDNs like all other heavy users of the network. Activists take a very narrow view of this, casting Comcast as the bad guy, but any technical analysis of the situation shows that NetFlix is the bad guy freeloading on the system, and Comcast is the good guy putting a stop to it.
Companies like Comcast must solve technical problems. NetNeutrality deliberately distorts the description of the problems in order to make corporations look evil. Comcast certainly has monopolies in big cities on broadband (above 10mbps) Internet and we should distrust them, but the above examples were decided on technical grounds, not on rent-seeking monopolist grounds.
Conclusion
I’m not trying to sway your opinion on NetNeutrality, though of course it’s quite clear I oppose it. Instead, I’m trying to prove that the activists protesting today are liars. NetNeutrality isn’t the status quo or the current law, it’s not being “saved”. NetNeutrality is pure left-wing politics, not technical, and activists have no special technical authority on the issue. Fast-lanes are how the Internet works, they don’t cause slow-lanes for everyone else. The activists stories of future doom are designed to scare you and aren’t realistic, and their stories of past problems are completely distorted.
Frankly, activists are dishonest with themselves, as shown in the following tweet. In their eyes, Comcast is evil and "all about profits" because they lobby against NetNeutrality, while NetFlix is arresponsible/good company because they support NetNeutrality. But of course, we all know that NetFlix is likewise "all about profits", and their support for NetNeutrality is purely because they will profit by it.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
EFF lies about NetNeutrality
The EFF has completely and thoroughly repudiated JP Barlow's "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace", such as in this tweet:
This tweet is lie. Congress can't "kill Net Neutrality" because Net Neutrality doesn't currently exist. Net Neutrality proponents don't want to maintain the status quo, but radically change the Internet, converting it from the private network it is now into a public utility, regulated by the government.
What the left-wing populists tell you about Net Neutrality is a lie. Corporations aren't doing the evil things they claim. There is no technical idea behind it like "end-to-end". Net Neutrality is just the political belief that corporations are inherently evil and that the government must run the Internet.
Internet "fast lanes" are not a bad thing. They already exist, and the Internet can't function without them. Sniff your home traffic and then traceroute every IP address your system communicates with. You'll find that 90% of you home traffic goes to a server in your local city. That's because most websites use a fast lane to the "content delivery network" ("CDN") like Akamai, or a private CDN by Google, Apple, or Facebook. No company with a major web presence can compete unless they, too, pay for a fast lane.
Such fast lanes are the way the Internet has to work. We imagine that I can setup my own website at home and the entire world can access it (in an end-to-end fashion), but Internet backbone simply cannot handle the traffic. Netflix alone requires thousands of times more bandwidth than the Internet backbone can provide without using fast lanes. That's the difference between "broadcast" television where a million people can watch the same stream, and "unicast" video where everyone watches their own custom stream.
This dispute between Comcast and Netflix is not what they claim. Netflix already pays for a fast lane by putting servers in every city, because it wouldn't work otherwise. The only question is how, within each city, the traffic streams from Netflix's servers to Comcast's network.
And even then that's still not the key question. Netflix now pays Comcast for a faster lane, putting their servers directly on the Comcast network. Yet, during peak hours (8pm to 10pm), the system still slows down dramatically to under 3-mbps (where I live). That's because Comcast's urban network still can't handle the bandwidth. For Netflix to truly work, either Comcast will have to put more fiber in the ground to spread the streams around, or Netflix will have to spread their servers around the city.
Either way, it's Netflix's customers that should have to pay for the upgrade. Comcast's network works fine for the 90% of customers who don't stream lots of Netflix videos. It's only Netflix customers who have the problem. Forcing Comcast to upgrade their network to support Netflix means forcing the majority of low-bandwidth customers to subsidize the high-bandwidth customers. This is inherently unfair. I'm a Netflix binge watcher, and I appreciate that my viewing has been subsidized, but I still find it unfair. The only fair solution is for Netflix's customers to pay for Comcast's build-out.
Net Neutrality proponents claim that American broadband is the slowest and most expensive in the world. Of course it is. American cities are spread out. Our commute distances are twice that of European cities. The greater the suburban sprawl, the more expensive the Internet service. My city has less than 10% the population density of Paris, of course Comcast broadband is going to cost more here. American's pay a lot more to commute to work, they should pay a lot more for broadband.
Comcast is a monopoly in my city. Only Comcast provides more than 6-mbps for home service (my service is 75-mbps). However, the fault is government regulators. They won't allow another company to come in and lay a fiber optic network unless that company agrees to lay fiber everywhere -- even the poor areas of town. That's why Google could afford to put fiber in places like Kansas City, because the city council agreed that Google only had to lay fiber in neighborhoods that would pay for the service. The answer to Comcast monopoly practices is less regulation, not more. If you want companies to provide high-speed broadband to poor neighborhoods to solve the digital divide, then it's something you should pay for, rather than forcing Comcast's potential competitors into paying for it. Companies don't operate at a loss -- when you force them to, they simply choose to not operate at all.
Net Neutrality is just left-wing populism run amok, playing on your fears in order to convert the private Internet into a government-regulated public utility like water, gas, and electricity. This won't "save" the Internet as they promise, but kill all innovation. Of course, if you are a left-winger, this is something you'll want, and nothing I can say can convince you otherwise. But it's something that libertarians and right-wingers will oppose.
TAKE ACTION: Congress is trying sneak through a dangerous amendment that will kill Net Neutrality. Call right now: https://t.co/lmObQjG49N
— EFF (@EFF) July 15, 2014
This tweet is lie. Congress can't "kill Net Neutrality" because Net Neutrality doesn't currently exist. Net Neutrality proponents don't want to maintain the status quo, but radically change the Internet, converting it from the private network it is now into a public utility, regulated by the government.
What the left-wing populists tell you about Net Neutrality is a lie. Corporations aren't doing the evil things they claim. There is no technical idea behind it like "end-to-end". Net Neutrality is just the political belief that corporations are inherently evil and that the government must run the Internet.
Internet "fast lanes" are not a bad thing. They already exist, and the Internet can't function without them. Sniff your home traffic and then traceroute every IP address your system communicates with. You'll find that 90% of you home traffic goes to a server in your local city. That's because most websites use a fast lane to the "content delivery network" ("CDN") like Akamai, or a private CDN by Google, Apple, or Facebook. No company with a major web presence can compete unless they, too, pay for a fast lane.
Such fast lanes are the way the Internet has to work. We imagine that I can setup my own website at home and the entire world can access it (in an end-to-end fashion), but Internet backbone simply cannot handle the traffic. Netflix alone requires thousands of times more bandwidth than the Internet backbone can provide without using fast lanes. That's the difference between "broadcast" television where a million people can watch the same stream, and "unicast" video where everyone watches their own custom stream.
This dispute between Comcast and Netflix is not what they claim. Netflix already pays for a fast lane by putting servers in every city, because it wouldn't work otherwise. The only question is how, within each city, the traffic streams from Netflix's servers to Comcast's network.
And even then that's still not the key question. Netflix now pays Comcast for a faster lane, putting their servers directly on the Comcast network. Yet, during peak hours (8pm to 10pm), the system still slows down dramatically to under 3-mbps (where I live). That's because Comcast's urban network still can't handle the bandwidth. For Netflix to truly work, either Comcast will have to put more fiber in the ground to spread the streams around, or Netflix will have to spread their servers around the city.
Either way, it's Netflix's customers that should have to pay for the upgrade. Comcast's network works fine for the 90% of customers who don't stream lots of Netflix videos. It's only Netflix customers who have the problem. Forcing Comcast to upgrade their network to support Netflix means forcing the majority of low-bandwidth customers to subsidize the high-bandwidth customers. This is inherently unfair. I'm a Netflix binge watcher, and I appreciate that my viewing has been subsidized, but I still find it unfair. The only fair solution is for Netflix's customers to pay for Comcast's build-out.
Net Neutrality proponents claim that American broadband is the slowest and most expensive in the world. Of course it is. American cities are spread out. Our commute distances are twice that of European cities. The greater the suburban sprawl, the more expensive the Internet service. My city has less than 10% the population density of Paris, of course Comcast broadband is going to cost more here. American's pay a lot more to commute to work, they should pay a lot more for broadband.
Comcast is a monopoly in my city. Only Comcast provides more than 6-mbps for home service (my service is 75-mbps). However, the fault is government regulators. They won't allow another company to come in and lay a fiber optic network unless that company agrees to lay fiber everywhere -- even the poor areas of town. That's why Google could afford to put fiber in places like Kansas City, because the city council agreed that Google only had to lay fiber in neighborhoods that would pay for the service. The answer to Comcast monopoly practices is less regulation, not more. If you want companies to provide high-speed broadband to poor neighborhoods to solve the digital divide, then it's something you should pay for, rather than forcing Comcast's potential competitors into paying for it. Companies don't operate at a loss -- when you force them to, they simply choose to not operate at all.
Net Neutrality is just left-wing populism run amok, playing on your fears in order to convert the private Internet into a government-regulated public utility like water, gas, and electricity. This won't "save" the Internet as they promise, but kill all innovation. Of course, if you are a left-winger, this is something you'll want, and nothing I can say can convince you otherwise. But it's something that libertarians and right-wingers will oppose.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Net Neutrality has never existed
This article does not fairly represent the position of NetNeutrality opponents.
Most opponents that I know of oppose NetNeutrality on the basis that government regulation of the Internet on behalf of large corporations is a bad idea. Microsoft and Google spend millions lobbying for NetNeutrality because they stand to benefit from such laws (not because they are "good guys").
The fact is that there has never been NetNeutrality. When I was in college, I was not allowed to use fast network connectivity because I wasn't part of the department that had a grant to pay for it. In your home, when the network connection is slow, you go up to your son's room and tell him to turn off BitTorrent. The Internet is divided into those who pay for it, and those who leech from it without paying. Keeping the leechers under control is an important part of keeping the Internet running.
Engineers who keep the backbone running have long been fighting this battle. They monitor their networks in order to make sure that people pay for the bandwidth they use. When they find leechers, they quickly move to stop the leeching. They battle the huge users of the Internet, like the Microsoft's and Google's of the world. The big users likewise have engineers that maintain multiple connections to the Internet, and try to find tricks to route their packets using the least cost possible. The often find an unsuspecting victim and find a way to change routes to get bandwidth for free. Right this second, an Internet backbone engineer somewhere in the world is tracking down a leecher and restricting its bandwidth.
If Microsoft and Google get their way, then this sort of stuff will stop. They will be free to exploit routes for lower prices, but ISPs will no longer be free to stop them. The small guys will end up paying for the bandwidth of the big guys.
NetNeutrality is not a battle of "the people vs. the powerful", but "the powerful vs. the powerful". No matter which side the government takes, we'll all lose. The best solution is to keep the government out of the fight.
The Internet was founded on principles of freedom, which is why Robert Kahn, one of the founders of the Internet, opposes NetNeutrality. Another founder, Vint Cerf, supports NetNeutrality, but of course, he's a paid lobbyist for Google. The EFF supports it, but that's because they are vapid populists, and will happily discard our rights and freedoms as long as a big corporation is hurt in the process.
NetNeutrality is an oddly Orwellian law, where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Most opponents that I know of oppose NetNeutrality on the basis that government regulation of the Internet on behalf of large corporations is a bad idea. Microsoft and Google spend millions lobbying for NetNeutrality because they stand to benefit from such laws (not because they are "good guys").
The fact is that there has never been NetNeutrality. When I was in college, I was not allowed to use fast network connectivity because I wasn't part of the department that had a grant to pay for it. In your home, when the network connection is slow, you go up to your son's room and tell him to turn off BitTorrent. The Internet is divided into those who pay for it, and those who leech from it without paying. Keeping the leechers under control is an important part of keeping the Internet running.
Engineers who keep the backbone running have long been fighting this battle. They monitor their networks in order to make sure that people pay for the bandwidth they use. When they find leechers, they quickly move to stop the leeching. They battle the huge users of the Internet, like the Microsoft's and Google's of the world. The big users likewise have engineers that maintain multiple connections to the Internet, and try to find tricks to route their packets using the least cost possible. The often find an unsuspecting victim and find a way to change routes to get bandwidth for free. Right this second, an Internet backbone engineer somewhere in the world is tracking down a leecher and restricting its bandwidth.
If Microsoft and Google get their way, then this sort of stuff will stop. They will be free to exploit routes for lower prices, but ISPs will no longer be free to stop them. The small guys will end up paying for the bandwidth of the big guys.
NetNeutrality is not a battle of "the people vs. the powerful", but "the powerful vs. the powerful". No matter which side the government takes, we'll all lose. The best solution is to keep the government out of the fight.
The Internet was founded on principles of freedom, which is why Robert Kahn, one of the founders of the Internet, opposes NetNeutrality. Another founder, Vint Cerf, supports NetNeutrality, but of course, he's a paid lobbyist for Google. The EFF supports it, but that's because they are vapid populists, and will happily discard our rights and freedoms as long as a big corporation is hurt in the process.
NetNeutrality is an oddly Orwellian law, where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)