Richard Bennett

This could be mildly amusing:

The Center for American Progress is pleased to present Dr. Vinton Cerf and Professor David Farber in “The Great Debate: What is Net Neutrality?” The event is currently sold out for attendees on-site, but you may access the reservation page to be put on a waiting list here.

The event will take place from 10:30-12:00 on Monday, July 17 at the Center’s event space, which is located at 1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. Audio streaming from the event will be available at the following URL:

* http://public.resource.org/neutral.m3u
* http://streaming-radio.americanprogress.org/event
* (Streaming will activate one hour before event.)

Our streaming servers have capacity for the first 200 listeners. The stream will be audio only. (If anybody would like to provide additional streaming capacity, please feel free to contact Carl at:

* mailto:[email protected]?subject=neutrality

A Jabber conference room will be available for people who wish to contribute running commentary:

* xmpp:[email protected]
* ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS: xmpp:[email protected]

Audience members will be able to submit questions using Jabber-compliant software such as Google Talk or iChat. You may send your questions here:

* xmpp:[email protected]
* ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS: xmpp:[email protected]

(If your instant messaging client doesn’t support XMPP URL’s, you may go to the conference room using “go to group chat” or “join conference” or a similar command in your client. Likewise, to send a question, simply send a message to [email protected].)blockquote>

Comcast has a pretty good Op-Ed in the Philly Inquirer about the wild claims of the regulation-happy neuts:

“One cannot ignore the ominous signs that network operators will frustrate consumers’ ability to go anywhere on the Internet,” said Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief technology officer.

Mundie made the “sky is falling” declaration in testimony before Congress in 2002. Four years later, the sky is still intact. In fact, Microsoft’s annual revenue grew, on average, by more than $10 billion per year; its net income grew by more than $3 billion per year. Meanwhile, the total value of Google’s stock has soared from nothing to about $117 billion. Everyone should have these kinds of “problems.”

Nevertheless, net-neutrality proponents are marching a new parade of horribles down Hypothetical Boulevard. But the two grievances they cite are really phantoms: One reported claim of content-blocking by a telephone company was promptly snuffed out by the Federal Communications Commission last year; the other one involved a software bug soon fixed by a third-party manufacturer. Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.

The cable-broadband business is in an intense rivalry with DSL, and we will face increasing competition from wireless and satellite broadband, fiber-to-the-home, and even broadband over power lines. Will the tens of millions of customers still on dial-up make the switch to us if we block access to content, prevent use of an application, or preclude the attachment of devices? We think not.

He refers to the alleged blocking of Craig’s List by Cox Cable, something that never actually happened. George Ou has an interesting update on that story, BTW:

Had Craigslist fixed their servers to behave according to best practice like everyone else on the web, the problem could have been universally fixed for all users with or without updated software from Authentium. Last month when the final update for Authentium was released, the story finally died down but the actual problem didn’t go away since it takes a long time for software updates to propagate to end users.

Yesterday when I was testing a new free network analyzer from WildPackets called OmniPeek Personal, I took a quick look at Craigslist.org and to my surprise it was fixed. I checked with a few of my colleagues and they verified the results. What surprised me was the fact that Craigslist never acknowledged any issues on their end yet they fixed it silently after all the smoke had cleared.

That’s right, not only was Craig’s List never blocked by Cox Cable, it had the power all along to overcome the problem it had with the personal firewall.

So who do you trust?

A grad student in media studies named Bill Herman makes an earnest attempt to rationalize Snowe-Dorgan for Public Knowledge and fails miserably:

For instance, what in the Snowe-Dorgan proposal, S 2917, mandates a specific internet architecture? The text is remarkably free of techno jargon. It forbids the blocking or degrading of legal net traffic, but it specifically authorizes companies to prioritize packets. If VoIP and streaming video need a smarter network, companies can build that smarter network. They just cannot charge extra for delivery of those specific services.

Technical people schooled in network protocols in general and priority-based QoS see the hole in his argument instantly: Priority-based QoS isn’t something you can give to everybody. There are a very limited set of time slots available on any network segment for low-latency delivery, and the only way we have to guarantee QoS to limit the number of QoS users at each segment in the routes we find for QoS. And that implies some sort of queue policing, which in general is triggered by a service contract.

So Snowe-Dorgan does mandate an architecture for datalinks and network segments, and it just so happens that the architecture it mandates is out of step with all new networks engineered in the past 10 years: WMM for WiFi, MBOA UWB, IEEE 802.15.3a UWB, WiMax, and even DOCSIS. Network engineers know this stuff, but media critics don’t.

As far as the “strike now while the iron is hot” argument goes, the argument for taking rash action because the issue will soon fade from public interest is the best argument for doing nothing we could possibly have. If the predictions of abuse the pro-regulation neutralists have made come true, the issue will certainly not fade from the public’s attention; that only happens if the predictions of abuse don’t materialize.

The neutralists have put themselves between a rock and hard place by making these hysterical claims, by the way. If nothing happens on the regulation front this year and these dire predictions fail to materialize, their credibility will certainly be damaged, perhaps permanently.

See the Ed Felton paper for the background on Herman’s complaints. The paper has a number of smallish technical errors, but reaches the right conclusion anyway.

Computerworld has a pretty good summary of the Net Neutrality issues today:

In a May 17 letter to congressional leaders, 35 manufacturers — including Alcatel, Cisco, Corning,and Qualcomm — said there’s no evidence that broadband providers now block or impair competing content. The Internet doesn’t need the burden of new regulations, the letter said, adding that passing a bill risks “hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules.”

The network equipment vendors are the closest thing we have to an informed and neutral party in this debate, so their opinion should carry a lot of weight.

Protocol Wars have raged in the network design community since the 1970s, or as long as we’ve had packets to switch. In many ways, the current debate over Internet regulation (AKA “net neutrality”) recaps those debates, albeit in a much more foolish way as the loudest voices are the most ignorant. Dana Blankenhorn spills the beans on the article of faith that motivates the regulators:

The idea of absolute top-down control in any area — entertainment, business, technology, politics — is simply non-optimal. Technology has enabled us all to be participants, in any way we wish to be, as well as audience.

That’s heavy, isn’t it? And true! Or not.

“Absolute top-down control” sounds like a really horrible thing, but so does “absolute bottom-up chaos”, because the two most hysterical terms are the first and last. Strip them off and you simply have “top-down”, a pretty respectable concept in many settings. Functional families are managed top-down, and so are businesses, nations, all social groups of animals, etc. So what’s the problem?

Top-down systems are quite often the optimal solution to engineering problems, as they eliminate from the get-go the fundamental problem with edge-managed or bottom-up systems: flapping. If you have four selfish people in a taxi, each of whom wants to get to a different place as quickly as possible, and they can all bark orders at the driver, you may never get anywhere, you’ll simply go around in circles until you run out of gas. All complex systems revolve around compromise, and the top-down control system is in a good position to assess general benefit and ensure that it’s allocated appropriately. It doesn’t scale well, and that’s where modularity and segmentation kick in.

The classic example in networking is the Ethernet. As originally conceived, it was a completely decentralized system, where all decisions about who got to transmit when were made by contention. Each system listened to the wire until it was silent, and then started transmitting. If two systems transmitted at once, they both noticed the collision of their packets and backed-off. After a semi-random delay, they tried again. Eventually everybody got to transmit, but the delays could be substantial. So along comes the Ethernet re-design, where the decision about who gets to transmit is moved up a level, to the switch. Everybody can transmit anytime the switch says they can, and the switch allows several systems to submit packets at the same time, which it sorts out as bandwidth becomes available. Switched Ethernet is centralized, and capable of using 100% of network bandwidth without losing a millisecond to collisions, backoffs, and dead time. It’s the optimal system, and that’s why you use it today.

In this as in many instances, absolute top-control is more optimal than absolute bottom-up chaos. And better than both is moderate top-down management, driven by a policy of the greatest good for the greatest number, or some similar rule.

As an example of engineering fact, it could well be that the best design for a network that permits all people to be performers is for the network’s tubes to be controlled top-down in the interest of fair access. Some at the edges are spammers, virus-makers, and other low-lifes. Can we always count on them to police their own behavior? I don’t think so, and neither do you.

So why do so many grown men still repeat the most idiotic sayings of the scruffy hippies of the 60s?

It’s a great mystery to me.

H/T Doc Searls.

The always provocative Andrew Orlowski finds a classic theme in the blogosphere’s reaction to the “net neutrality” debate:

For a moment, let’s dispose of the telco lobby’s argument that the phantom of a “free market” means any new regulation is unnecessary. With spectacularly poor timing, AT&T launched its IPTV service this week, pricing it exactly in line with the cable operators it’s competing with. And you thought competition is supposed to lower prices? The cable companies and IP giants are a duopoly – and they don’t like competition. Verizon’s patent infringement lawsuit against Vonage reminds us of that.

For the Neutralists, any suggestion of packet prioritization was interpreted as a speech issue – as censorship. But packet prioritization is very useful to the health of a data network. Neutralists assumed that because some services may have a higher priority, and travel faster – as video packets must – their favorite services would automatically travel slower. This is in spite of the recent doubling – at no extra cost – of internet bandwidth to Verizon fiber customers, who are the only US consumers to enjoy European-style broadband speeds today.

As for business – which you’ll note conspicuously failed to join the campaign – the various attempts at drafting ‘neutrality’ legislation would have rendered today’s Service Level Guarantees, the SGAs, or SLGs which businesses demand – illegal. IP expert Richard Bennett has offered a sensible technical antidote to both the free market utopians who came out to support the big telcos, and the hysterical Neutralists. Bennett argues that the net needs new policies because VoIP and Bittorrent simply saturate it further. You may disagree, but at least it’s a rational argument.

That last line needs a little clarifying as we failed to make telephone contact today: VoIP won’t generate much traffic until a lot more people use it, but it’s the canary in the coal mine that will die as BitTorrent overload sets in.

Technology is all about change, so any movement allegedly grounded in tech that’s resistant to change on principle has some problems.

I did a Yahoo search for the movie Outfoxed for article below, and here’s what I got:

Outfoxed on Yahoo! Movies
Yahoo! Shortcut – About

1. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism Open this result in new window
Documentary examining Fox News and its parent corporation, Rupert Murdoch’s FOX Network, examining what the movie calls Fox’s right-wing agenda through media interviews, insider documents, and reporter testimony.
Category: Movie Titles > Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (2004)
www.outfoxed.org – 11k – Cached – More from this site – Save

2. Outfoxed | Personalize your internet. Open this result in new window
Personalize your internet. User login. Username: Password: Informer Spotlight. Spyware Warrior. Eric L. Howes provides two great informer pages based on his incredible AGNIS list: Outfoxed. There are over 8 billion web pages. Most of them suck. … Outfoxed uses your network of trusted friends and experts to help you find the good stuff and avoid …
getoutfoxed.com – 9k – Cached – More from this site – Save

3. Out-Foxed (2004) – IMDb Open this result in new window
Includes ratings and details of Robert Greenwald’s documentary Outfoxed.
Category: Movie Titles > Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (2004)
us.imdb.com/title/tt0418038 – 55k – Cached – More from this site – Save

The first link is where Yahoo tries to sell you the movie. It has a little Yahoo logo on it, but I clicked on that “neutral” result first, as would most people,

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Here’s a great opinion piece on Internet regulation from City Journal by Brian C. Anderson:

Net neutrality would swiftly become a bureaucratic nightmare. “Neutrality regulation might as well have been labeled the ‘Telecom Lawyer & Lobbyist Full Employment Act of 2006’ because it would generate mountains of regulation and litigation in coming years,” says Theirer. “You simply can’t put something as amorphous as ‘digital nondiscrimination’ mandates on the books and then expect that regulators won’t abuse it—and that means competing teams of lawyers, consultants, and economists will be hired to try to figure it all out. When they don’t, the lawsuits will start flying.”

…The biggest reason to be thankful Congress resisted net neutrality: the scary prospect of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi trying to stamp out broadband traffic “discrimination.” Some of the most vocal neutrality advocates, including Save the Internet campaign organizer Free Press, relentlessly agitate for regulation of other media to fight “corporate interests” and guarantee “fairness.” The deeper agenda at work in the net neutrality debate, insufficiently noticed by most commentators, is the Left’s zeal to get a hold of the new media, which have given conservative voices powerful outlets, shattering the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets—and regulate those outlets out of existence, so we can all go back to the days when the New York Times and other elite liberal institutions set the agenda.

Net neutrality was brought to you by the sponsors of Outfoxed, the MSM doesn’t seems to find that remarkable.

CNet’s Daniel Terdiman tried to get inside Google’s new complex in Oregon, and was turned away. See what Ron Wyden’s defending.

UPDATE: One application that’s going to run in this hideaway is Google Checkout. See Donna Bogatin for discussion of Google’s impact on business relationships on the Web. She asks the right question:

Is Google a benevolent promoter of ecommerce, however, or is it an online “wolf in sheep’s clothing”?

There’s plenty of evidence pointing to the latter conclusion.