The War Over Neutrality

Chris Pepper (apparently) - 10:07am May 18, 2006 PST
via email

[Yay! A new thread on this topic - please use this one rather than the poor overloaded "Net neutrality?" thread. -Adam]

>Defining Net Neutrality -- It's odd to say, but as a practical
>matter the Internet has never been neutral. Access methods and
>capabilities have always impacted the Internet experience. Just ask
>anyone downloading Apple's 100-plus megabyte system updates via
>dialup: they'll tell you the Internet is biased against them!
>Similarly, you may have a broadband connection, but maybe your new
>favorite band's MP3 files are being served over an ISDN line and
>still download at a snail's pace, or perhaps your cable provider
>can't quite keep up with the streaming QuickTime movie. Or maybe
>your ISP allows you to send mail only via their mail servers, rather
>than through your employer's or one you run yourself. And firewalls
>- which are everywhere these days - are all about taking the
>"neutral" out of the Internet: they deliberately screen and block
>different types of Internet traffic. Corporations routinely block
>peer-to-peer file sharing and services which are known security
>risks; schools enable access only to approved "whitelisted" sites
>(or blacklist problematic sites: Del Mar College in Texas recently
>blocked access to MySpace). Some technologies "shape" Internet
>traffic by limiting how much of available bandwidth can be used by
>certain users, locations, or services, and, of course, some
>governments actively block and censor the Internet. These are all
>current examples of non-neutral behavior on the Internet today.

<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=08528>

        I don't agree with this statement. While Internet access
isn't all the same (your ISDN isn't the same as my DSL or someone
else's modem, or the University's Internet uplink), the Network
Neutrality debate is specifically about traffic shaping and QoS
(Quality of Service).

        The best-effort point is a good one. Historically, bandwidth
has been governed by three characteristics: physical connection
(optionally with a software limiter built into the local hardware),
interconnect characteristics (latency and other subtleties), and
contention. If there are 100 people using a 30mbps cable modem
downlink, they average 300kbps each. At 5am, the same people might
each get 10mbps. Customers who care about it largely understand this
-- it's a lot like the effect of traffic on a road.

        What seems pernicious in Verizon's & AT&T's statements is
that they want to add a higher level of restriction, where a central
office makes a more abstract decision about bandwidth. In this case,
"more abstract" means more flexible, and billable. Looking at
Google's and Microsoft's share values, they have to seem ripe for
some plucking.


        On the other hand, the telcos have a real concern that
they've oversold bandwidth, and thus can't deliver the service levels
they've *sold* to their own (video, VoIP, or whatever) customers.

        Logically from their perspective, they'd like to use QoS to
guarantee their own services work well, and would prefer *not* to use
QoS to help their competitors. But now they are in the ugly realm of
trying to "monetize" an existing system, which upsets everybody's
historical expectations. And customers don't want to be locked into
services from our ISPs through arbitrarily configured limitations.

        Even if Verizon doesn't have a relationship with Vonage or
Google, their common users do, and Verizon would like to assert
control over that relationship, which is almost certain to cause some
degree of harm those users, whether it's poor audio from Skype, or
lack of choice in video downloads, or higher fees for music stores
because the online music vendors need additional money to pay off the
ISPs.


        Making this all much more important, very few places have a
good variety of broadband options. Most of the people near us can get
cable from the cable company, or DSL from the phone company. Not
everybody can get cable, and not everybody can get DSL. Satellite is
not directly comparable to either, and DSL from an independent
provider like Speakeasy is significantly more expensive. In reality,
many people are stuck with their ISP for one reason or another, and
largely powerless to affect the relationships between these large
companies. I'm pretty sure Verizon isn't going to send customers an
survey one day, saying "Would you like Verizon services to use
[benefit from] QoS? Would you like non-Verizon services to use
[suffer under] QoS?"


        I understand that Verizon owns their circuits. They paid for
them with fees they charged customers like me, though. I have an
interest, and a stake as a member of the community they are legally
authorized to serve. Ownership of the infrastructure does not give
them the only voice in how things should be run.

        Part of this is the inevitable discomfort of progress. Movie
companies were terrified of videos, but VHS and DVD turned out to be
great moneymakers.

        Without email and Google, how many Internet customers do you
think AOL and Verizon would have today? To me, it's very clear that
AOL and Verizon should not get to choose which services work well on
the Internet.


                                                Chris Pepper
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>