ManyMedia

Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) introduced a bill (full text, PDF) on July 31, 2009 to establish a clear national broadband policy that ensures an open and consumer oriented Internet. In a press release from Rep. Markey, he stated, “This bill will protect consumers and content providers because it will restore the guarantee that one does not have to ask permission to innovate.” Rep. Eshoo added that “The Internet has thrived and revolutionized business and the economy precisely because it started as an open technology.” About their bill, H.R. 3458:

H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, is designed to assess and promote Internet freedom for consumers and content providers.  The bill states that it is the policy of the United States to protect the right of consumers to access lawful content, run lawful applications, and use lawful services of their choice on the Internet while preserving and promoting the open and interconnected nature of broadband networks, enabling consumers to connect to such networks their choice of lawful devices, as long as such devices do not harm the network.  The legislation also directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to promulgate several rules relating to enforcement and implementation of the legislation, including rules to ensure that providers of Internet access service fulfill the duties and disclose meaningful information to consumers about a provider’s Internet access service in clear, uniform, and conspicuous manner.  H.R. 3458 makes clear that it does not prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in the bill, nor does the legislation affect any law or regulation addressing prohibited or unlawful activity, including any laws or regulations prohibiting theft of content.

Yes, there are controversies lately that prompt this legislative action. The controversies include the recent rift between Apple/AT&T and Google Voice, inquiry into exclusive arrangements between wireless carriers and cell phone manufacturers, and what Doc Searls so appropriately calls The Dawn of the Living Infrastructure. It’s time to focus on this issue (again). Citing Doc:

Let’s face it. Mike Arrington’s problem with the iPhone, Om Malik’s problem with AT&T, the FCC’s problem with Apple + AT&T together, my own problems with Cox, Dish Network and Sprint, David Pogue’s problem with the whole freaking cell phone industry … all of these are a great big WAAAH! in the wilderness of industrial oblivity to what customers want. We’re in the graveyard of what Umair Haque calls the zombieconomy. We’re living in Night of the Living Dead and complaining that the zombies want to eat us alive.

What they really want is to strap us down while they bleed us for small change—tiny amounts of ARPU. They do this, for example, by forcing us to sit through “The … number … you … have … dialed … eight … zero … five … seven …” until a small ka-ching happens somewhere deep in their billing system, so you get bled whether or not you’ve left (or received) a message. David Pogue:

Is 15 seconds here and there that big a deal? Well, Verizon has 70 million customers. If each customer leaves one message and checks voicemail once a day, Verizon rakes in — are you sitting down? — $850 million a year. That’s right: $850 million, just from making us sit through those 15-second airtime-eating instructions.

This is death by a thousand paper cuts. More importantly, it’s a tax on innovation and the ability to connect and be creative. Let’s put a stop to it.

Devices, Network, Policy antitrust, cell phone carriers, mobile tech, network neutrality, open networks, zombieconomy

Vudu will be depending on telco DSLs and cable modems to deliver P2P video-on-demand (VoD) “instantly”. But telcos and cable companies routinely impair P2P packets. I understand that a relatively few users account for the biggest single category of Internet traffic-namely, P2P traffic. Arguably, ISPs really do need to siphon P2P through a narrow pipe to keep traffic flowing smoothly for the rest of the user base. I could easily see where this might be true. If BitTorrent worked faster, more people would use it and that might really slow down Web traffic for everybody else.

So I’m not saying that telcos and cable companies are completely evil. But considering that the duopoly seems to have the legal right to impair any packets they choose; and considering that both cable franchises and Baby Bells are trying to promote their own VoD services; it seems to me that the duopoly has the means, motive, and opportunity to legally kill off Vudu.

Of course, another possibility might be for Vudu to cut the broadband ISPs in on the deal. If they do, so much for the cost advantages of an independent Web service delivering VoD. Besides, cable and telco VoD services could use P2P themselves to cut down on server costs. In fact, Sky Anywhere (affiliated with the BSkyB satellite service) in the UK already does it, using the (much criticized) Kontiki P2P client. Ditto BBC’s trial run of its Internet Media Player. Likewise, Warner Bros. will supposedly distribute using BitTorrent. Maybe cable and telephone equipment makers just need to integrate P2P into their set top boxes, and stonewall any patents on the topic that Vudu might have.

The only missing link then would be Vudu’s idea of storing the first few minutes or so of many movies on the hard disk in your set top box. Maybe Vudu has a patent on that too? Even if they do, I’m not sure it’s that big a deal. Telco and cable servers could easily get around any such patent, using centralized servers to perform the equivalent task of buffering video before the P2P kicks in. Besides, I don’t see a huge advantage of using local storage of the opening scenes, as opposed to doing it on a server.

But if there is an advantage, maybe cable franchises and telcos could upload lots of opening scenes to your set top box’s hard disk, without worrying about whether Vudu patented that idea or not. Personally I consider the idea to be obvious. Before I ever heard of Vudu. I had a conversation with at least one other engineer about prestoring the first few minutes of many programs to reduce start-time latency of any kind of Internet video, and constantly refreshing the library of prestored opening scenes as studios release new videos.

Content, Network cable, choice, closed networks, Internet, network neutrality, open content, telecom, video on demand

I keep seeing references (like the first paragraph of http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/atkinsonweiser.htm ) to the idea that proponents of network neutrality are in favor of regulation, and opponents are against regulation. This is nonsense. If opponents are against regulation, let’s see them advocate in favor of lifting the ban against municipalities that want to require open access, and repealing laws against municipalities that want to build wireless nets.

And what do you call the rules that prevent cities from setting the terms of cable franchises? I call them regulations, and anyone who doesn’t is a lying sack of fertilizer. It’s part of the same mendacious mentality that uses the word “express lanes” when they really mean “impair my packets so yours can go faster”. If they could, they’d favor a special-interest law of physics that lets them use faster-than-light technology for their packets–and only their packets.

If existing regulatory measures were not in place, neighborhood activists could lobby their city councils in favor of net neutrality. Citizens would throw out boards of supervisors and city councils that could be seen to be in the pocket of the hated Cable Guy. Any city politician who wanted to keep their job would insist that cable franchisees must treat packets fairly. The only reason cities don’t do that is that because of a lot of regulations, cities have lost their negotiating rights.

Bottom line, I’d be fine with “express lanes” for data, if the market was competitive and not a duopoly. Actually, if there was more competition, I doubt if any ISPs would even consider impairing my packets. But as long as we have in place shelves full of regulations that protect incumbents, I say “Maximum speed 186 thousand miles per second: It’s the law”.

Network, Policy cable, closed networks, incumbents, muni networks, network neutrality, open networks, regulations

People do not use the term “network neutrality” in a consistent fashion, so no ideal definition exists. Basically, some broadband ISPs want to set network-administration policies any way they like-including prioritizing and deprioritizing of different packets, and charging extra to assign higher priorities. Some ISPs have used the term “express lanes” to describe premium-priced virtual channels that prioritize packets according to the wishes of higher-paying customers. Different advocates for express lanes describe such customers differently-as Web site operators and/or as end-users. Many customers of ISPs want traffic routed in a more democratic manner, largely based on first-come, first-served policies.

I find that the quality of the debate is very poor, with both sides engaging in intellectually dishonest tactics. The ISPs are dishonest because so-called “express lanes” only come about by impairing the progress of non-express packets; no technology exists to put packets at “warp speed”. But advocates of network neutrality also fudge the truth when they insist on democratic network policies.

In fact, when accessing a higher-paying Web site such as Amazon, users typically do enjoy faster downloading than when accessing lower-paying sites such as those of small-press publishers. Moreover, ISPs impair P2P traffic to a reduced level, but one that many users find acceptable. Many network engineers believe that a relatively small number of P2P users account for a very large percentage of Internet traffic, and that if ISPs did not impair such traffic, a few users would interfere with serving the needs of the greater Internet population.

While the most vigorous debate occurs among Internet pundits and bloggers, the most influential debate occurs in Washington D.C., where service providers AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon team up to lobby in favor of the so-called express lanes, and large customers including Microsoft and Google team up to lobby in favor of laws that will mandate so-called network neutrality. I have little doubt that the fractious debate will be with us for some time; that compromises will be struck, allowing existing services to remain more or less status-quo, while introducing out-of-band services that provide “express lanes”; that ISPs will face challenges in getting customers to pay extra; and that over the course of many decades, many parties will struggle to control strategic pathways for data, just as armies seek control of rivers and nations seek control of markets.

---

Note for future: If there was more competition, not a duopoly, perhaps traffic would have to be neutral for competitive reasons. Thus, I would like to understand what the policy justification was for overturning open access. “Municipalities are not allowed to require open access because the court upheld the FCC regulation, and the FCC justifies its policy on the basis of YYY”.” How do they justify it? Technically, it flies in the face of the 7-layer model (penalizes use of advanced technology) and the “property rights” argument alone doesn’t hold water bec. municipalities have property rights, too. I would also like to understand what the obstacle is for new facilities-based ISPs. “Startups cannot enter the market because YYY”. (Is there still a legal/regulatory mandate for exclusivity, aka monopoly for video franchises and universal-service telcos? Where does the truth lie between “too costly” and “would simply violate regulations”? Is it “too costly to comply with regulations”? What exactly would it take to start “Newco Residential Fiber Services”?)

Network, Policy Bell Telephone Co, cable, closed networks, FCC, Internet, network neutrality, open networks

There are those who believe the Internet offers unprecedented opportunity to inform people, develop our global culture(s), connect devices, and more.

There are those who believe the Internet offers a new money-making opportunity, a way to limit the development of any possible competition, and an ideal cat-bird seat as privileged economic middleman in a service quickly becoming a necessity in modern life.

The fortunate truth is that the Internet is still a primordial lake. The enzymes are all there: a network, interested people, compelling things to do and places to go, and imaginative devices that can be used in a wide variety of settings and for a wide variety of purposes, to fullfil our desires and needs. However, life is not certain: many of the powers that “control” the Internet have visions of a dead sea.

Our friends have often pointed out that there are ways for us to route around the rocks of DRM, censorship, and other obstacles–as if these were no more significant than a broken router. Still, there’s reason to complain when entering a bright cove, confronted with a seemingly unavoidable pre-roll video advertisement that’s the price of watching a great piece of footage (like this one, if you can get past the snakes).

Biologists tell us that the eye emerged many times in separate lines of evolution, and they use the word convergence or parallel evolution to describe that kind of emergence. Maybe like the eye, the “routing around” phenomenon will repeat itself in history over and over. It’s in the DNA of packets. In fact, it’s in the DNA of DRM: By definition, DRM systems give you everything you need to decode something you purchased. (When in doubt, just download a copy of Audacity and let it rip. This should not be construed as encouraging infringement. Instead, you might want to lean how to make mashups.)

Still, without a pipe, there’s no packet. If the octopus controls all the pipes, what then? Are there new pipes that have the “routing around” DNA? Are there enzymes in the primordial soup that have the power to break down the walls of the octopus’s garden?

Yes. There. Are. Unlicensed spectrum. Mesh networks. Ultrawideband communications. Detect-and-avoid. 802.22. We could go on. But not yet. Stay tuned.

Network choice, closed networks, Internet, network neutrality, open networks