FCC chairman weighs-in on width versus length debate
It wasn’t so many years ago, remember, when AT&T (the old AT&T, the U. S. national telephone monopoly) owned the phone wire in your walls. You put the wire there, or your builder did, and you certainly paid for it, but once dial tone filled the lines those lines became the physical property of Ma Bell and you couldn’t legally touch them. Everyone longing for the bad old days should remember when you couldn’t touch your own phone lines under penalty of law. Today or tomorrow, we’re told, the FCC will vote under the guise of net neutrality to re-instill some of those old ways of doing business, at least for wireless networks.
Well it won’t work.
The short story of what’s happening at the FCC is that the agency is trying to grab power over the Internet and to make that happen is paying-off any number of constituencies. With everything eventually going onto the net as a data service, the FCC wants to avoid irrelevancy, so this is how they are doing it with the help of Google and Verizon. Net neutrality partisans appear willing to accept more oversight if it comes with guarantees against packet throttling. And phone companies are willing to accept broader restrictions if they can still throttle or introduce tiered charges on their only networks that matter anymore — wireless.
These new rules, then, establish three fundamental ideas: 1) the FCC has regulatory authority over the U. S. Internet; 2) Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can’t discriminate between data types like video, voice, or torrents on their wired networks, but; 3) wireless ISP’s can discriminate between data types and applications as long as they aren’t giving preferential treatment to their own competing products or services.
So T-Mobile, just as an example, can limit or create a surcharge for Hulu, but only if it isn’t offering a service of its own that is competitive with Hulu and for which it doesn’t make such a surcharge.
The theory behind this rule is that wireless networks are a more bandwidth-limited resource than wired networks.
While the new FCC rules allow tiered pricing and limited packet filtering for wireless networks, they do so with the loud (and I think fairly legitimate) argument that competition will work to mitigate any telco abuses. There are nearly always three or more wireless network providers in any area and those mobile providers that punish their customers will be punished in turn by the loss of those customers to more enlightened network operators.
But to my way of thinking it really doesn’t matter, because those who would put limits on the Internet really don’t understand how the Internet works.
Look for shortly to appear what I’m calling the Trojan App, a hybrid mobile application that doesn’t exist yet but certainly will within hours or days of the new rules going into effect. The Trojan App is a legitimate mobile application that performs multiple functions, at least one of which is to circumvent the new wireless rules.
Here’s what I mean. Maybe you saw the story a couple of days ago about technology being brought to market that would enable mobile phone companies to charge Facebook users by the page for access. Under the new rules a mobile carrier can do that, no problem. But because that mobile network offers its own voice service (they all do) under the new rules they can’t similarly restrict Skype or Google Voice or any of the dozens or hundreds of Voice-over-IP third-party services out there. So what’s to keep Skype or Google or Yahoo or iChat or MrVoIP from offering a mobile version of its service that includes a free gateway to Facebook?
Nothing.
These are perfectly legitimate applications that are protected from throttling by virtue of their competing with a core service of the ISP, yet in this instance they will have gained a secondary function of acting as a Virtual Private Network link to an otherwise-regulated service like Facebook.
It’s a digital loophole.
Some might argue this simply won’t happen but they’ll be wrong. That’s because there is a long and successful tradition of using functional VPNs to accomplish such ends on the Internet. That’s how I watch Top Gear. But even more importantly the major players will do it because they’ll be forced into it by the minor players.
I could set-up in the cloud overnight a VoIP or some other qualifying service like mail or chat or video streaming. If I add a Facebook gateway to my new service and Yahoo doesn’t to theirs, well Yahoo loses.
Okay, maybe Yahoo isn’t the best example, given their decided lack of common sense for the past decade or so, but you get my point. Skype would lose. Google would lose. Microsoft would lose. And you know they won’t stand for that.
The Internet — even the wireless Internet — is a living thing that will optimize itself around any obstruction.
Resistance is futile.
There remains a massive difference between “surcharge” and “limiting”. Surcharge is just business, wheras limiting (i.e. throttling) actually damages services. Net neutrality was really only about the second – though it seems to have gotten caught up in the first issue. For instance, cloud gaming like onlive can deal with surcharges as it may have to in any market, but it cannot survive hits on latency.
The loophole argument sets up a war between inspectors and trafficers – and we already know who wins that as you suggest.
Using your Hulu example, this really creates an interesting issue: What incentive do wireless providers like T-Mobile have to broaden their service offering if they can charge for Hulu(and other applications) rather than build something organically?
In your example, Skype acts as a gateway to Facebook, but I can more easily see it working the other way — firms like Facebook add functionality to their applications that compete directly with the wireless carriers (e.g. adding VOIP).
But I wonder if there isn’t already an application that’s easy to support that would directly compete with the wireless carriers: email. I’m fairly certain that I get an email address with my Comcast and Verizon accounts. Doesn’t that make Google an instant competitor? And Facebook, now that they’re adding email?
Yes, that’s very possible. It could go in either direction or, more likely, in both directions at once, which would make the new rules totally moot. I’m not smart enough to know exactly how the net is going to reach this destination, but I have a pretty good idea what that destination will be.
Like this article!
When I was reading elsewhere the other day about the new proposals it seemed to be – to my lay-eyes/ears – just a statement that the Internet would be owned and regulated by BUSINESS. It seemed to forget about all the genuine pioneers out there; all the private websites; all the public services.
Maybe I was being dense and missed some early point, but it seemed that businesses were trying to claim ownership of something that really isn’t theirs. They were being offered the Internet on a plate as long as they allowed regulation.
OK, I know bandwidth costs. My own ISP gave me an unlimited deal years ago as I was seen as a loyal customer. I don’t abuse my freedom though. And thinking about it, my service is ok and I’m not likely to change unless something goes wrong.
With my Internet access I run a small, non-commercial website and enjoy exploring all the free resources out there. Do my Christmas shopping etc…
However, from reading this column for umpteen years, I think I know that the basic infrastructure of the Internet was originally put in place by the scientific and military communities. We in effect piggy-back on their foundations. True commerce has driven bigger data-pipes and data-switching centres, but the basic chassis isn’t any commercial company’s to claim.
Regulation of the Internet is incredibly difficult by the inherent indestructibility of packet-switching. Why it is robust against terrorist attack and why people who try to silence other people on the Internet would find it pretty nigh-on impossible.
Unless it is explicitly against a law of the land involved I suppose.
The last-but-one paragraph in this article says it all.
We all know this is about money and business as pointed out by Nigel but it’s also about knowledge (it’s a dangerous thing after all).
Let’s be honest with ourselves, How long did we really think all this content was going to be free? In a way it’s analogous to the early computer and automation era – computers would set us free! More leisure time! Let the robots do the work!
Well here we all are 30 years later. Do you feel free? Do you do less work?
What are the computers being used for? The computer revolution has been used to: Get us to do the work in our “spare” time that companies used to do themselves. Computers are being used to threaten us, track us, place us under surveillance and market stuff to us. Soon the “charging/traffic rating ability” will have every site, every URL, Tracked, Tacked to a rate and then…. Woooo there.. – what are you trying to read TimOfEngland, huh? Well, sorry, that content is not enabled for your country, your eyes or your ears. Enter international internet PIN________ Enter subject viewing PIN_________ Enter Password_________ Enter your country, address code and colour of underpants_______ ..________ ________ …… Access denied. Forwarding your IP address to internet police divisional computer data collection hub… You will be contacted shortly…… 🙁
Okay, Internet Police. You caught me. But please have pity on this old fart who was just recalling the days gone past by looking at some gir.. What’s that noise? Is that some of your thugs breaking down my front door?
“Please Mr. storm trooper, don’t throw me into that brier patch! No, No, please don’t.”
–** Message terminated by order of Dictator for Life, Reggie Overlord. **–
Likewise the Telecom giants are watching our every move unless the plans for building of the foundation of a monopoly are Exterminated.
Please Reply at my email.
TimOfEngland says soon we will not be able to get to certain sites. Well that has happened a few years ago. We in Canada can not access some TV websites to watch TV shows. Why, because our ISP are in Canada. We get a denial of service message.
There are technical ways around that as I alluded (Top Gear) but they require effort. Everything does.
Yes, there are technical ways around almost everything. But it adds another barnacle to what was once the sleek ship of the internet. It adds another layer of complexity (see http://amzn.com/052138673X). And disintermediation is now dis-disintermediation.
We are watching the wreck of the internet in slow motion.
The Amazon link is another barnacle.
https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X
Barnacle indeed!
Thanks for the recommendation on “The Collapse of Complex Societies”, Chicken — looks like a great read!
Bob, thanks for the story and for the cheeky “FCC chairman weighs-in on width versus length debate” caption. 🙂
Try living in a third-world country (actually, we’re an Unincorporated US Territory) where the ISP is so back asswards that all our IP addresses show up as being in Turkey. Believe me, that one’s a lot of fun. Every day. Turkey.
Not a big Surprise. Since the advent of the Internet age Many corporations have tried to monopolize it. A very difficult task since many Internet Giants like Google or AOL won’t sell off. The FCC is taking a wrong move in this game, wireless networks should be under the central commands of Governemtn departments or Companies like
Not a big Surprise. Since the advent of the Internet age Many corporations have tried to monopolize it. A very difficult task since many Internet Giants like Google or AOL won’t sell off. The FCC is taking a wrong move in this game, wireless networks should be under the central commands of Governmental departments or Companies like Microsoft, Corps who Invest millions in research and innovation. The U.S. should certainly take a stand in the endorsement of wireless networks so that the advent of the Ma Bell Reign comes to a grinding halt. We’re moving into the future so it’s about time we reinvented to the Telecommunications industry and pioneered on a new Revolution, The Telecom Wars!
Last time I checked, the www depends on the Internet Backbone. To the extent that commercial interests control it (they do), they control the www. This regulation will only increase that level of control. The bifurcated www is here.
To some extent, I’m OK with that; the NetFlixes of the world should be forced to pay the marginal cost of their services. Riding for free on the www of web pages is perverse incentive.
There are these two notions of net neutrality: those that wish to ride for free (or at least substantially below their inherent marginal cost), and those that wish to avoid commercial control of the www. The latter is a long lost cause. The former should never have been allowed. If you read the history, you’ll see that the original net was co-opted by commercial interests, which were more than happy to ride for free.
Do Netflix get their bandwidth for free? My bet is that no, no they do not.
Given that, they are already paying the “marginal costs of their services” through their contractual arrangement with their own ISP.
I. as a consumer, pay my ISP for the bandwidth that I use. I also pay Netflix for a service that I can access via the internet, using the bandwidth that I already paid for. Netflix has already paid their own ISP for the bandwidth to provide their service to me and millions of other consumers. My ISP, who has already received payment from me for the bandwidth, should not be able to charge Netflix a second time for the same bandwidth. If they are allowed to do this, Netflix and other service providers will have to pass the charges on to the consumer, and I will end up paying twice for the same bandwidth. Charging twice for the same bandwidth should be considered the same as theft or fraud… a crime.
Remember, the backbone is a common “utility” through which all the bits pass. The net, unless Google gets its way, isn’t a point-to-point system. While the user pays an ISP and Netflix pays an ISP, it’s the backbone that ultimately matters. All users, even those just surfing pages, end up paying a per capita share for that backbone.
Now, if that backbone needs to get 5 times fatter to enable the Netflixes of the world to do their thing, then a small fraction of users (the Netflix addicts) ride on the backs of the rest of us. If this were a simple set of transactions between three or four parties (Netflix, customer, each’s pipe to the backbone), then metering the bad actors at both ends is perfectly fine. It just doesn’t work that way.
The Netflix issue isn’t so much a backbone issue, but of individual ISPs not being able to handle the onslaught of data coming in from L3. Comcast is the big complainer. They sold X number of unlimited internet connections assuming that they either only a certain % would be using it or they would be getting Comcast content (pay per view). They assumed their network would be fine or they could supliment the infrastrucure upgrade costs from thier content sales.
Along comes Netflix and assumes that all of those ‘unlimited’ users could pull content from then unabated. The model works well when you have a limited number of users sucking up the bandwith and the costs are suplimented by the large number of users that use a small fraction of that ‘unlimited’ bandwith. Unfortunatly the limitations always get in the way when more and more users go from using a small fraction to a large fraction. Comcast doesn’t have a working model with too many unlimited users; Netflix depends on somebody else providing last mile to all of those unlimited users. Neither Comcast nor Netflix is in a position to absorb the additional costs and neither of them want move from an unlimited flat rate service to a metered service. That would just drive customers to other providers.
In the end somebody has to pay. And it is usually the end users.
— In the end somebody has to pay. And it is usually the end users.
For a Neo Classical Economist, it should be the end users. The issue is whether any part of the cost of Netflixing should be borne by others. I say, no, but then I don’t Netflix. Those who argue for a “free” www do so on the public utility justification, but won’t (that I’ve seen) argue that private profit should be squeezed out; this is a public utility, just like the original AT&T. Regulate at as such, or least demand said regulation if you argue for a “free” www. Which is why the ISP’s want to meter/throttle the profligate. Yes, they blew it (well, there quant analysts; yes, those guys, again) with the assumption of a “normal” distribution of usage. Any attempt at “clouds” will run into the same problem: everybody wants more resources at 9:00 AM/local, and nobody wants any at 1:00 AM/local.
But it all boils down to the same issue: should the many subsidize the few? While the ISP’s have been hoisted on their own pitards, it shouldn’t be the case that the many do subsidize the few.
The argument that a “free” (or at least, one price, sort of) www led to “entrepreneurs” creating new applications, I just don’t buy it. To what end is Facebook? Does it make sense to subsidize such juvenilia, however that subsidy is extracted? If it really costs $10/month to support a Facebook account, then let the Facebook users pay the $10. Other than making a handful of teenagers fabulously rich, how is the world a better place? It’s no longer clear; different, sure, but better? Not a easy case to make.
that’s NetFux, actually. unless your buffer is ten gigs wide.
same old rules apply… whatever resources you get in your shiny new toy and its connection, they aren’t enough. whatever resources the world can build to make your shiny new toy sparkle, they aren’t enough. and when little Billy and little Susie get their shiny new toys, you all get to look at the spinning wheel instead of things that make you say “ooh..”.
net neutrality is all about preserving equal access to what you, YOU, want to look at on any particular moment, not what MediaCo wants to jam you with at substantial extra cost.
and what the FCC voted on wasn’t net neutrality. it was “congratulations, you can pay for the wireless outfits to buy the spectrum we want to sell from our pile of stolen airwaves, so the budget isn’t as full of red ink.”
can’t fool me in ten minutes, guys, I’ve been working on it for a lifetime.
uh, wait, what?!?
The rule should be simple: if you have a government sanctioned monopoly (as cable and wireless companies do) then you do not get to pick winners and losers, period. If the companies and regulators do allow free entrance and exit to a market (free as in the sense of competition) then companies within can do what they want and users will decide (call it democracy and/or capitalism in action).
Many towns have monopoly agreements with a single cable provider. You could not start up your own. Similarly even if someone gave you a telephony backhaul you could not start your own mobile phone company in your town due to all the barriers to entry.
Today: bandwidth. Tomorrow: content. Once you let government regulation in there’s no telling where it can go (keep in mind this President says he want a “kill switch” for the internet). This is not a tech issue, it’s a freedom issue.
Freedom? If I go into the UI of my FIOS router, I can with all the pomp of a tinpot dictator arbitrarily block the display of every web page that includes the word *freedom*. And so how do I go about doing that with free-to-air, to-you-via-direct-EM-wave radio and TV?
Freedom is *gone* when content arrives over digital networking; with it, the business of stepping on the hose and then taking bids on the price of lifting one’s foot is limitlessly granular, as are skirmishes over the power/right/ability to limit, shape, and monetize the application of the foot. It’s a money machine where the more freedom users “lose,” the more the paid purveyors, defenders, and attackers of the system “win.”
“Net neutrality” is snake oil that will only make marketers, corporations and their lawyers (or is that lawyers, corporations and their marketers?) richer. And just think: We shifted over to this because it was “progress.”
go (keep in mind this President says he want a “kill switch” for the internet). This is not a tech issue, it’s a freedom issue.
[…] Cringely kicks over a rock. The short story of what’s happening at the FCC is that the agency is trying to grab power over the Internet and to make that happen is paying-off any number of constituencies. With everything eventually going onto the net as a data service, the FCC wants to avoid irrelevancy, so this is how they are doing it with the help of Google and Verizon. Net neutrality partisans appear willing to accept more oversight if it comes with guarantees against packet throttling. And phone companies are willing to accept broader restrictions if they can still throttle or introduce tiered charges on their only networks that matter anymore — wireless. […]
Cringely is assuming that we will continue to have unfettered ability to install the application of our choice on our wireless device, and that the app will have full access to the wireless network. While that access is generally possible today, there are [business] forces that are attempting to control the applications that we can use.
Noteworthy are the recent Android phones that have locked-down boot loaders that prevent non-approved roms from being loaded on the phone. While this “feature” does not seem to have seriously impacted the sale of these products, it may be a first test to see how the public accepts more restrictive policies in the future.
The only flaw that I see with your logic is it assumes the playing field is so level that competition is more cost-effective than collusion.
An example: If the (three or four) major service providers agree to price floors, they can use (size-of-) market effects to preclude competition, akin to how cable companies currently seem to operate. If you make the margins small enough in fair competition, the challenging start-ups simply can’t start.
I think that the litmus test of Power is the Control you can exercise on your target. In that context, this is nothing but a continuation of the Power-Grabbing that Government and Business are more-or-less mandated to continue. There aren’t many business or government models that increase the value of the organization by allowing consumers or citizens more freedom to choose. Taking away choice, exercising control, means that you do not have to have a superior product or service, you only have to have the only product or service.
In Government that has already happened for so long that we really don’t consider plurality a viable choice. Can you imagine choosing which Federal Government you want to join? Thought not. If you are liquid or rootless enough you can still choose State and Local, but for how long? I’ve lived in places where it is manditory to register your address, tv, and radio to the Government (Germany) and to get permission to move to another city (China). It only takes one good crisis to make registration and permission a requirement. Control makes governing easier, more Control makes it more easy, the only time Control is bad for Government is if it makes the country it controls too inflexible to compete with other Governments. Logically/Cynically, that only means that it is in the best interest of Government to promote Control to other Governments, or in this case, an international agenda to regulate the Internet.
In Business, no choice is the Holy Grail that means you can deliver minimum product for maximum profit, and it is a reasonable guess that most all businesses want that. In fact, increasing Shareholder’s value is the mandate of many businesses so in that sense, there is no choice (ironic) for Business but to promote no choice in the Market. If consumers’ advocates, such as regulatory agencies, can be circumvented or controlled or enfranchised, then there are fewer obstacles to achieving that Holy Grail. Yes? Even businesses that have superior products and currently dominate the Market can make more profit if they have more control of the Market.
So given the more-or-less mandated objectives of Government and Business it is not a surprise that they want to control the Internet as much as they can. It’s not a lot different than making you register your tv or radio, in fact, it is a lot like that because you may have to start using regulated (by the FCC?) accounts that will make even free, coffee shop, anonymous wifi regulated. Even better than having your address is having all the spots you can normally be found during your waking and, if you stay logged in, sleeping hours. And when you can only find a limited selection, or no selection, of something on the Internet that you used to have a large variety of, say soap, or better yet, news, then you will know that at least one Market is now controlled and if one, why not more (the burning question in the minds of other CEOs in other Markets)? Power-Grabbing, controlling consumer and citizen, is a logical, if not palatable, conclusion of the system we live in today.
The only way it would work would be if we, consumers and citizens, have some means to keep the playing field level and to let competition and market force decide who gets market share. That was one of the original ideas behind government regulation, I thought, to keep the field level. But when Government has a dog in that fight then it is not impartial. As we can see with the latest FCC Power-Grabbing, citizen and the consumer are equally valued by both Government and Business as resources for their continued existence.
I think Cringley is right in his final conclusion, I only think that he means something other than I do when he says it.
— That was one of the original ideas behind government regulation, I thought, to keep the field level.
So far as telecom goes, absolutely NO. It was recognized early on that a single phone system was the only kind that made sense. Once you know that only, for technical reasons, one/very few supplier makes sense then you have two choices: explicit communal ownership of the means of supply (so that “profit” redounds to all of us, not just a few) such as happens in much of Europe, or a regulated private monopoly (since a monopoly will eventually occur if private capital is left alone; surprise, that’s what the “break up” of AT&T did) to ensure that the public isn’t harmed by monopoly behaviour. We had that. Now we have the worst of both worlds. Vote for George O’Brien, get Charley off the MTA.
The Right Wingnuts like monopoly behaviour, since Corporations are their constituents and Corporations always seek to be monopolists. Birds of a feather, and all that.
[…] been written about this, and I’ll provide a bevy of links at the end of this blog post. But the best on the subject has been Bob Cringely, who writes: The short story of what’s happening at the FCC is that the agency is trying to grab […]
So how does the wise Cringley watch Top Gear – Enlighten us please.
Using a UK-based proxy server, I’m betting.
— So how does the wise Cringley watch Top Gear – Enlighten us please.
If you have “real” broadband (not just DSL), you can stream the shows from the website. Well, you could do so on dialup, too; it just wouldn’t be a pleasant experience.
The whole notion of voice/audio/video streaming in a packet switched system is just so silly. But that’s what happens when clever folks see an infrastructure, albeit not appropriate to their use, which can be subverted to their use at a fraction of the cost if they did it on their own nickel.
Once again, privatizing profits while socializing cost. Land of the free, my arse.
“The Internet — even the wireless Internet — is a living thing”…
Really?!
As in, it exercises self preservation, metabolizes energy in an organized fashion, replicates itself, evolves, grows, displays organized behavior, responds to inputs, learns…
Seems humankind may have created a next step in the process of evolution – might be a good topic of discussion.
OK, it may be alive, but is it conscious, yet?
Yes Bob, I understand where you’re coming from.
But it just highlights my confusion over all this. If this is inevitable, which it is. One can only ask themselves why?
If throttling the pipe is really all about rationing a scarce or soon-to-be scarce resource, then there may be technical ways to bypass the choke point, but that avoids the real (or artificial) issue.
Is rationing of mobile access to the internet needed, or is it not needed? If rationing is needed now, will that problem go away in the future or will it get worse?
The intent of rationing is to prevent anarchy.
I was involved in a disscussion about this, earlier this monch, and found these links:
A neutral ‘Net needs up to twice the bandwidth of a tiered network
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2007/07/neutral-net-needs-up-to-twice-the-bandwidth-of-a-tiered-network.ars
also this
http://isen.com/blog/2007/07/research-on-costs-of-net-neutrality.html
The essential kernel:
“the cheapest and best alternative is simply to build out dumb capacity: to “overprovision” by as much as 100 percent. The “bandwidth is scarce” argument plays right into the hands of the major ISPs, which can use it to start charging a premium for crucial services that run across their networks. If they simply built out the networks to the point of abundance, they couldn’t make all this extra money.”
In other words, it’s actually a lot easier and cheaper — and more effective — to dramatically increase bandwidth, than to engage in various complicated, relatively expensive, technologically sophisticated methods to identify, sort and prioritize internet traffic by content, purpose, protocol, source/destination and subscriber plan.
The real advantage of restricting and controlling the supposedly scarce resource of bandwidth in such a manner is the ability to charge extra fees and extract extra profits on the basis of this “scarcity”.
Of course, all this unnecessary traffic-management hardware has the added bonus of greatly facilitating various kinds of detailed snooping on the communications of internet users — which is no doubt a rather attractive benefit to both governmental and commercial actors.
Part of the problem is that the carriers are trying to bill on a basis other than what they are really selling.
Billing is based on bits. But, what they are selling is bandwidth. Total bits are based on how long you use at a given bandwidth. The problem the providers have is that they have promised more bandwidth than they have. This is only a problem at certain times. For those times, they have to slow down the bandwidth to each customer. Electric utilities face the same problems. So do water systems. With Electric systems, an overload on the system means a brownout. With a water system, it means lower water pressure. With an internet connection, it means a slower bandwidth.
Servers face the same problem. Most of us have experienced a slowdown due to servers. the connection to the ISP is also through a server. It sometimes overloads too.
The ISP’s need to pay attention to bandwidth. Any tiers need to be based on bandwidth also. If I have bought bits, I can use them all in a short space. The ISP then has a shortage. If bandwidth is the limit, then they will know where to increase the connections and servers. If it’s all just bits, then it is not an obvious where the infrastructure needs to be beefed up. Due to my uses intermittent nature, my internet connection may need a very high bandwidth for a very short time. Just like with an Electric Utility, use is not constant. the Utility needs to overbuild the delivery system. This should be built into the rates. They might also want to limit the bandwidth to what is paid for. Currently, cell providers don’t control bandwidth to subscribers, They should.
There remains a massive difference between “surcharge” and “limiting”. Surcharge is just business, wheras limiting (i.e. throttling) actually damages services. Net neutrality was really only about the second – though it seems to have gotten caught up in the first issue. For instance, cloud gaming like onlive can deal with surcharges as it may have to in any market, but it cannot survive hits on latency.
The loophole argument sets up a war between inspectors and trafficers – and we already know who wins that as you suggest.
If throttling the pipe is really all about rationing a scarce or soon-to-be scarce resource, then there may be technical ways to bypass the choke point, but that avoids the real (or artificial) issue.
Is rationing of mobile access to the internet needed, or is it not needed? If rationing is needed now, will that problem go away in the future or will it get worse?
The intent of rationing is to prevent anarchy.
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
Unfortunately, just saying that censorship or resistance is futile doesn’t make it so. If there is an opportunity to add a surcharge or advertising, it will happen. Look at what happened to the original Napster and its clones. People are allowed to use the internet for all legal content. So the stakeholders work on various ways to make the activity illegal. Resistance is futile.
Love you blog, very useful
Bob, lets take a look at the other side of the coin. You’re focusing on things that will happen as a result of the lack of net neutrality rules on wireless networks. Lets talk about the things that won’t happen as a result of the presence of net neutrality rules on wired networks.
Suppose you’re an ISP offering a VoIP service. If there were no rules concerning what a wired network can and cannot be used for, you might build a wired network specifically for the purpose of improving your VoIP service. Given that the new rules dictate that any such network must benefit all VoIP service providers equally, there is now no reason for you to build such a network. As a result, the network won’t get built.
Net Neutrality is regulation. It’s the FCC asserting ownership over something that they didn’t build. The downside of regulation is always manifested in things that *don’t* happen, but could or would have in the absense of regulation.
Net Neutrality is regulation. It’s the FCC asserting ownership over something that they didn’t build. The downside of regulation is always manifested in things that *don’t* happen, but could or would have in the absense of regulation.
Buy $10 Replica Designer Sunglasses with 3-day FREE SHIPPING
I like the part where you say you are doing this to give back but I would assume by all the comments that this is working for you as well
You really Became a wonderful copy writer. The first time I Began traveling to this site I Thought That owned a large number of probable.
It’s the FCC asserting ownership over something that they didn’t build. The downside of regulation is always manifested in
SWTOR Guide Reviews…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » The Trojan App – Cringely on technology[…]…
Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all adidas predator x and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam. https://www.soccers-cleats.com/ PZZ
Good day very cool blog!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your site and take the feeds additionally?I am satisfied to find numerous useful information here in the publish, we want develop more techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .