on net neutrality. I got a pleasant shock, today, to hear him call for broadband classification until Title II, which would require making internet access about nothing but dumb pipes. And that's as it should be. Either that, or going after Comcast, Verizon, AT&T (and maybe RCN and Time-Warner Cable) under anti-trust laws is needed. I think Title II is the better approach of those two.
So I was very glad to hear him make such a public comment. I hope it has the desired effect; the change is definitely needed.
Oh, and it was pointed out to me, earlier today, that Ted Cruz tweeted something like "Net Neutrality is Obamacare for the internet. The internet shouldn't run on government time". I really wish I knew how effective that tweet is for its intended audience, because it's a completely moronic thing to say. I guess we can hope that the people for whom it would be effective do not have twitter accounts.
Showing posts with label net neutrality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label net neutrality. Show all posts
20140503
More on net neutrality
The latest stratechery (now pronounced "strah-tek-ery", apparently) podcast had a lot of good information in it. There was discussion of what "common carrier" status means, which I should have probably explained better in my last mention of the issue. And there was an excellent discussion of what "rent seeking" means, in economic terms.
(And a brief sidenote about the Andreeson quote. Utilities probably did have 10x as much poop to handle every three years for the first decade or more of laying pipes to deal with that. I wish my grandfather was still around to ask about that; he spent most of his career putting in sewer lines.)
There's also some interesting things I never considered, like how Netflix' behavior might be rent-seeking, and how metered usage would solve a number of problems.
The problem with metered usage is a simple matter of cognitive load. Until the prices get much lower (in line with the cost of providing the data), it adds much great transaction costs. Very few people would have signed up for broadband at all, if it had been metered; they had no idea how much they used. And even now, it'd be a big shift. But maybe that's where things need to go; I've been solidly against that, but they've got me thinking a bit more about it, and maybe it's inevitable.
But there were a couple places where I thought the discussion fell down. One was that they failed to mention how, back in the 90's, the telecomms were given hundreds of billions (yes, that's with a B) of dollars in tax breaks to provide Fiber to the Home (FTTH). How much of that exists? Yes, basically zero.
Another was that there was no mention of how the governments provide rights of way to put in cables. That's also a hundreds of billions of dollars subsidy. Not that I mind it being provided; I do agree with them that, at this point, internet access is a basic right. But it does bear on the discussion.
A final one (and this is the important one) is the idea of content delivery networks. The basic idea is that the CDN provider (Akamai, for instance) puts their servers in the ISP's data center, and Netflix, for instance, provides data to the CDN, and the CDN delivers to the customers.
What that means is that, despite the fact that Netflix is the bulk of all internet traffic, most (read: probably 99% or more) of their traffic is only going from CDN to end user. And that means, as far as the ISP is concerned, the data is staying within the ISP. And bandwidth within the ISP is, effectively, infinite. The cost to the ISP is the cost of electricity. In aggregate, that's a lot, but it's mostly the cost of having the system operating; data traveling adds very little.
So I fundamentally disagree about Netflix being rent-seeking. And about the reasonability of the ISP charging extra for Netflix. Netflix pays the CDN, and the CDN pays the ISP, so they're actually looking to triple-charge, not double-charge.
The other major issue is that they missed, as I mentioned, Wheeler mentioning "common carrier" status, and mentioning reclassifying ISPs. Not a huge deal, as I don't believe Wheeler when he talks about it, but it's worth mentioning that Wheeler did add it to the discussion.
Still, well worth a listen, despite it being quite long.
(And a brief sidenote about the Andreeson quote. Utilities probably did have 10x as much poop to handle every three years for the first decade or more of laying pipes to deal with that. I wish my grandfather was still around to ask about that; he spent most of his career putting in sewer lines.)
There's also some interesting things I never considered, like how Netflix' behavior might be rent-seeking, and how metered usage would solve a number of problems.
The problem with metered usage is a simple matter of cognitive load. Until the prices get much lower (in line with the cost of providing the data), it adds much great transaction costs. Very few people would have signed up for broadband at all, if it had been metered; they had no idea how much they used. And even now, it'd be a big shift. But maybe that's where things need to go; I've been solidly against that, but they've got me thinking a bit more about it, and maybe it's inevitable.
But there were a couple places where I thought the discussion fell down. One was that they failed to mention how, back in the 90's, the telecomms were given hundreds of billions (yes, that's with a B) of dollars in tax breaks to provide Fiber to the Home (FTTH). How much of that exists? Yes, basically zero.
Another was that there was no mention of how the governments provide rights of way to put in cables. That's also a hundreds of billions of dollars subsidy. Not that I mind it being provided; I do agree with them that, at this point, internet access is a basic right. But it does bear on the discussion.
A final one (and this is the important one) is the idea of content delivery networks. The basic idea is that the CDN provider (Akamai, for instance) puts their servers in the ISP's data center, and Netflix, for instance, provides data to the CDN, and the CDN delivers to the customers.
What that means is that, despite the fact that Netflix is the bulk of all internet traffic, most (read: probably 99% or more) of their traffic is only going from CDN to end user. And that means, as far as the ISP is concerned, the data is staying within the ISP. And bandwidth within the ISP is, effectively, infinite. The cost to the ISP is the cost of electricity. In aggregate, that's a lot, but it's mostly the cost of having the system operating; data traveling adds very little.
So I fundamentally disagree about Netflix being rent-seeking. And about the reasonability of the ISP charging extra for Netflix. Netflix pays the CDN, and the CDN pays the ISP, so they're actually looking to triple-charge, not double-charge.
The other major issue is that they missed, as I mentioned, Wheeler mentioning "common carrier" status, and mentioning reclassifying ISPs. Not a huge deal, as I don't believe Wheeler when he talks about it, but it's worth mentioning that Wheeler did add it to the discussion.
Still, well worth a listen, despite it being quite long.
20140501
Followup on FCC
Two things of note. Wheeler, the head of the FCC, has come out and said that his plan actually will preserve net neutrality, and that if it doesn't, he might declare broadband providers to be "common carriers".
The first part of that is certainly not true. The second part would be encouraging, if I believed that he actually meant it. Declaring them to have common carrier status would be huge, but I don't believe him when he says that he might do it.
Separately, in a speech at a cable lobbying event, he said that he would seek to override states laws that forbid municipal broadband provisions. Color me skeptical on that, but that would be huge, if true. That would force the companies to potentially face competition, which would make them clean up their acts.
Again, he's probably lying (his choice of where to say that is certainly interesting, though), but that would be fantastic news, if true. Because if there's competition, then net neutrality becomes largely a non-issue, because nobody would choose a company that violated that if there was an alternative.
The first part of that is certainly not true. The second part would be encouraging, if I believed that he actually meant it. Declaring them to have common carrier status would be huge, but I don't believe him when he says that he might do it.
Separately, in a speech at a cable lobbying event, he said that he would seek to override states laws that forbid municipal broadband provisions. Color me skeptical on that, but that would be huge, if true. That would force the companies to potentially face competition, which would make them clean up their acts.
Again, he's probably lying (his choice of where to say that is certainly interesting, though), but that would be fantastic news, if true. Because if there's competition, then net neutrality becomes largely a non-issue, because nobody would choose a company that violated that if there was an alternative.
20140425
Neutral notations
I forgot to mention a few things when I was writing about the FCC and net neutrality earlier. One, Wheeler, the Chairman of the FCC, is the former head of lobbying for both the wireless telephone industry and for the cable industry. So he is hardly a neutral observer.
Two, there's a White House petition to address net neutrality ('tain't much, but 'tain't nuthin). Similarly, there's an online petition (ditto). If you care about this, I recommend both of these. The second site also takes donations for grass-roots work.
And again, contact your Congresscritter and Senators.
Two, there's a White House petition to address net neutrality ('tain't much, but 'tain't nuthin). Similarly, there's an online petition (ditto). If you care about this, I recommend both of these. The second site also takes donations for grass-roots work.
And again, contact your Congresscritter and Senators.
Oligarchy stepping on everyone
After being told by the courts that the approach taken to enforcing net neutrality was not a valid one, the FCC has decided that the next approach is just to punt entirely.
The rationale is that the broadband providers are creating "fast lanes" that will enable companies that are willing to pay extra (think netflix, amazon, and google, mostly) to get to consumers more easily.
Unfortunately, this rationale is horribly misleading, because they aren't creating new lanes. They're just repurposing some lanes for exclusive access to those who want to pay.
In the DC area, on the Virginia Beltway (I-495), there are now what are called HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lanes. Basically, two lanes are reserved for those willing to pay to travel on those lanes. The idea is similar, but the difference is that they didn't take two lanes away from the existing road; they built two extras.
But the broadband incumbents have no incentive to build more capacity for those "toll" lanes; they don't have competition to deal with, so why bother? Who's going to leave? Where can you leave to? If you're lucky, you might have one other choice. But most people don't even have that.
So when they say there's some consumer benefit to this plan, that's a complete lie. For an eloquent statement of why, listen to candidate Barak Obama (who appointed the current head of the FCC, who's pushing this plan).
And that was dead on. Too bad he's completely forgotten what got him elected (the current situation with the intelligence agencies is another example of that).
The other part, which he didn't touch on, there, was that it also destroys the next Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram, or Pinterest, or... The point is that it is heavily in favor of incumbents.
One example that I saw elsewhere (my apologies to the person who wrote it; I can't remember or find it now), was that it could completely destroy a new game, as it gets faced with lag (because the creator can't afford to get into the fast lanes) and can't offer a good experience, through no fault of its own.
So call your Congressmen and Senators, because this is a plan that benefits no one except the incumbents in a few industries. If there were real competition, this idea would be a non-starter, because consumers would immediately abandon any company which tried to implement it.
And when the FCC opens this for comments, give them comments. And put those comments in the form of a Word Document or PDF, as that will force the FCC to actually read them.
The rationale is that the broadband providers are creating "fast lanes" that will enable companies that are willing to pay extra (think netflix, amazon, and google, mostly) to get to consumers more easily.
Unfortunately, this rationale is horribly misleading, because they aren't creating new lanes. They're just repurposing some lanes for exclusive access to those who want to pay.
In the DC area, on the Virginia Beltway (I-495), there are now what are called HOT (High Occupancy/Toll) lanes. Basically, two lanes are reserved for those willing to pay to travel on those lanes. The idea is similar, but the difference is that they didn't take two lanes away from the existing road; they built two extras.
But the broadband incumbents have no incentive to build more capacity for those "toll" lanes; they don't have competition to deal with, so why bother? Who's going to leave? Where can you leave to? If you're lucky, you might have one other choice. But most people don't even have that.
So when they say there's some consumer benefit to this plan, that's a complete lie. For an eloquent statement of why, listen to candidate Barak Obama (who appointed the current head of the FCC, who's pushing this plan).
“I am a strong supporter of net neutrality.” Explaining, he said, “What you’ve been seeing is some lobbying that says that the servers and the various portals through which you’re getting information over the Internet should be able to be gatekeepers and to charge different rates to different Web sites…. And that I think destroys one of the best things about the Internet — which is that there is this incredible equality there.”
And that was dead on. Too bad he's completely forgotten what got him elected (the current situation with the intelligence agencies is another example of that).
The other part, which he didn't touch on, there, was that it also destroys the next Facebook, or Twitter, or Instagram, or Pinterest, or... The point is that it is heavily in favor of incumbents.
One example that I saw elsewhere (my apologies to the person who wrote it; I can't remember or find it now), was that it could completely destroy a new game, as it gets faced with lag (because the creator can't afford to get into the fast lanes) and can't offer a good experience, through no fault of its own.
So call your Congressmen and Senators, because this is a plan that benefits no one except the incumbents in a few industries. If there were real competition, this idea would be a non-starter, because consumers would immediately abandon any company which tried to implement it.
And when the FCC opens this for comments, give them comments. And put those comments in the form of a Word Document or PDF, as that will force the FCC to actually read them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)