Net Neutrality Astroturfs Pushing Hard

In the resent weeks AT&T has been at the forefront of some curious decisions. They along with Apple have prevented companies like Slingbox from placing Apps on the iPhone that would stream video over 3G, but then allowed Major League Baseball, whom they have close ties, to introduce an application that would stream live baseball games. Then this week came the news that Apple and AT&T denied a Google Voice app from being placed on the iPhone that would allow users to use the app for VoIP calls or cheap international calls, which may have been part of the reason that Google’s Eric Schmidt resigned from Apple’s board.? The Google application is similar to Skype, but the currently available Skype app can only be used on WiFi.

The various incidents brought clamors of Net Neutrality violations back into public lime light. An area of concern usually focused on traditional Internet networks. The situation brings up new questions about what networks should be allowed to manage packet delivery in the world of the “end-to-end principle” and whether a company should be allowed to control the applications available on its networks. The cell industry is a new realm for this debate, and the questions surfacing may be hard to tackle. A company like Apple and AT&T who are selling a product and service in this particular arena may have a decent claim that certain applications usurp their business model on the very thing they are selling and negate their ability to generate revenue. Cell phone companies have traditionally operated in models that are essentially silos. But the ever evolving nature of the phone market place essentially putting tiny computers, rather than simply stand alone phones in consumers’ pockets is opening questions pertaining to consumer rights.

In what has to be the worst timing possible for Apple and AT&T’s antics was the introduction of the Internet Preservation Act of 2009 by Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) on July 31st. The situation certainly is causing the drum beat for the bill to be loud and clear. But who is beating that drum and why?

Some of the major groups pushing for Net Neutrality include The New America Foundation, a group heavily backed by Google who also retains Google’s CEO as its chairman. Lobbying operations that receive money from Google including FreePress, SavetheInternet.com, Public Knowledge, and Media Access Project are also heavily engaged. Additionally, Lawrence Lessig, whom I have great admiration for but disagree with his Net Neutrality stance is a hard charger in this area and also backed by Google.

So why is Google so interested in Net Neutrality as law and especially at the width and breadth of this new bill when Google VP Vint Cerf was quoted as saying,

A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive.

There are probably a variety of reasons. One may be that Google can simply speed up their traffic and avoid the end-to-end principle by edge caching. Essentially they make deals with telecos to place their servers all over the country (and world) and can deliver the data as cache speeding up the transfer of bits to the end user. Cache isn’t considered “network management” by most standards and therefore their bits travel faster while they pour money all over regulation that will prevent anyone else from having their Internet traffic be able to keep up.

Additionally, while Net Neutrality advocates claim that the current situation causes barriers to entry into the broadband marketplace for new broadband companies and technologies, the argument in reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Five years ago this was a decent argument. Today, new options are cropping up all over the country. And in a few years time, most consumers in metro areas should have at minimum five choices. My home town of Atlanta currently has seven plus options for high-speed broadband access at the moment, from copper, fiber, and satellite to WiMax with Broadband over Power Lines (BPL) soon to follow suit as well. But with government controlling broadband, and creating regulation for how companies manage their networks, the entry barriers will more than likely only worsen.

As Tim Lee puts it,

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today’s network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms.

And along with barriers for entry in regards to new ISP’s, it may also create barriers for entry for new ideas like new advertising models. This may be another reason why Google and its lobbyist are pushing hard for this bill. [Make no mistake, Google is an advertising company, not a search company.] Additionally it could create barriers for entry for new technologies and services in the ISP market. The Internet is still in its infancy. While it has reached a point where the average user probably does not remember life without it, it is still a growing, evolving beast. What we imagine is not possible or that no one would be interested in today may be laughable tomorrow. The future of the Internet may become a customizable personal experience where individuals may specifically choose an ISP that is solely built for a specific purpose.

What if for instance Limelight Networks, a content delivery service for the likes of Apple’s iTunes, Microsoft’s Xbox Live, Sony’s Playstation Network, and Netflix decided they would create last-mile networks instead of simply connecting to a last-mile network? This would provide end users connected to the service the ability to have all time sensitive content like high definition movies, music delivery, downloadable content, and online gaming priority over non-time sensitive content like email or casual Internet surfing. The possibility of product specific entertainment oriented high speed networks is absolutely not out of the question for the future of the Internet.? But if this bill passes, things like this would no longer have only the current barriers of entry, they would have additionally have the government to determine entry.

As Richard Bennett, a network architect who has testified before the FCC, describes it,

In its essence, the Internet is a resource contention system that should, in most cases, resolve competing demands for bandwidth in favor of customer perception and experience. When I testified at the FCC’s first hearing on network management practices last February, I spent half my time on this point and all other witnesses agreed with me: applications have diverse needs, and the network should do its best to meet all of them. That’s what we expect from a multi-purpose network, after all.

Net Neutrality backers are currently scarred that ISP’s will take advantage of them in some way. But the free market traditionally has a way of correcting itself. James G. Lakely, managing editor of Infotech & Telecom News and a research fellow at The Heartland Institute recently argued in the The Bulletin in favor of the free market when it comes to the Internet,

The ordered chaos of market forces may scare those who don’t understand it. But the market is efficient, quickly responsive to the needs and wants of consumers, and in the proper sense of the word free.

This couldn’t be better stated. Neutrality proponents love to point out situations like last April’s fiasco with Time Warner Cable’s move to metered billing. And they continue to harp on the issue to this day as a reason to enforce Net Neutrality. But what happened in that case? The market reacted with grand outcry. [More than likely because they didn't understand it, and the truth is that metered billing would probably save 95% of broadband Internet users a huge chunk of change.] Within days of the outcry, TWC pulled the plug. The market didn’t want it, and the company responded to the market.

Which ultimately begs the question, will the government react in only days if the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 has a negative market impact? If the 60 year period between updates of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 is any example, we’re in for trouble. Trouble that will only allow for other countries to continue passing us by in broadband innovation and delivery.

-nick

More Gateway Neutrality

News outlets are reporting today that recipients of grant monies from the Broadband Expansion portion of the Stimulus Act will be forced to implement Net Neutrality regulation into networks built on these grants as ruled today by the Obama Administration.

I first divulged this in an article on OpenMarket.org back in January.? And to quote myself, I had stated that,

The issue here is that it doesn?t matter if the FCC or the Fed can regulate net neutrality on the grand scale right now, the recipient of these grant funds will be legally bound to adhere to the FCC policy statement implementing net neutrality and establishing open networks.? After that, the fix is in.? One or more publicly funded networks would exist running under regulated and enforced net neutrality principles.? A few years later, legislation will be introduced again to mandate net neutrality in all U.S. networks.?? Backers of the legislation will refer to the networks built under the stimulus plan pointing out how flawlessly they are running, and how neutrality principles have provided for that condition because the FCC can watch dog the network.

Furthermore, I reported in March that companies like Verizon and AT&T were potentially not going to apply for grants for this very reason,

This reluctance to accept government funding shows that major ISPs realize that acceptance of stimulus funds puts them squarely under the FCC Network Neutrality principles.?? These principles could bleed into the other networks?such as Verizon?s FiOS TV or AT&T?s U-Verse?that these large Internet players own. ? Meaning this policy would be the camel?s nose under the tent.

Adding that,

Molly Peterson of Bloomberg News confirms that big ISPs realize the danger associated with accepting recovery funds:

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast Corp., the largest U.S. cable provider, say the rules are unwarranted and would hinder their ability to manage congestion on networks they have spent billions to build.

So while this was bound to happen, I guess one could say that it’s a sure thing now.? With only $7.2 Billion available for broadband expansion and those monies being distributed in amounts that will be paltry in comparison to what telecoms generally spend in network expansion, there is a real possibility here that avoiding government funding will actually benefit their bottom line rather than helping improve them.? These gateway stimulus fund drugs will inevitably find their way into regulating their own private networks if these companies are not weary.

-nick

Personal Democracy Forum: The Future of the Conservative Movement

I?m sitting in a bar.

These things must be qualified though, right?

So I?m sitting in a sports bar.? Sports bars are particular entities of the bar world in that they have televisions with sports playing on them while they serve the spirits of the normal bar.? This isn?t to say that normal bars don?t show sports on their televisions.? It just means that they are normally called something that starts with ?Mc? and they have fewer televisions.

This particular sports bar has a sponsor.? It?s a Fox Sports Bar.? Not to be confused as Fox, sports bar.? But rather it is a Fox Sports, bar.

Like I said, these things must be qualified.? Also not to be confused with quantified, which would be to essentially count something.? And I?m pretty sure there is only one of me here and there is only one Fox Sports, bar present at this time.? But that could change depending on the terminal.

Ah, yes.? I?m in a terminal.? Not conditionally, but in the transitional sense.? In this case transferring myself to a plan, which has now been delayed two hours.? If you thought to yourself, ?Bummer,? it was an understatement because I was already two hours early to the original flight.

Bummer.

So I?m sitting in a Fox Sports, bar, that resides in a terminal that is a part of an airport for which I am awaiting a plane to board which will take me to Atlanta four hours from now.

I?m involved in all of this because I have recently, at the point of this writing, left the Personal Democracy Forum Conference of the year 2009.? Following day one of the event I was certainly frustrated.? There were a number of reasons for this.? For one, which I?ve already mentioned, I was beleaguered by the progressive presence.? Yes, we are all tech people at this conference and we all want to talk about the influence of tech on politics.? But there are certain things that, while all of that is true, tech people on the left and right just don?t see eye to eye.

For instance, I do not want network neutrality regulated. Period.? Tech proponents of such a step are short sighted.? Talk to someone who manages a large infrastructure.? They will tell you that network management of packet transfer must take place.? Good luck with the regulated network neutrality Internet when your whole neighborhood is trying to get time sensitive streaming 1080p video across your network at the same time and we have locked in regulation that will take ages to alter.? In the spirit of Monty Python, ?I laugh in your general direction.?? Is network neutrality important?? Absolutely.? I will not argue that point.? But regulated neutrality is an entirely different beast.

But I digress.

Panelists were over heard making the following comments:

?This is what we need to do to see ?progressive? health care reform.?

?We need to pray to god for a hot summer to make people believe that global warming is real.?

?The ?Bush? recession.?

Additionally all our problems were blamed on the Bush Administration.? Obviously our current problems are entirely his fault, along with Batman, Darth Vader, and probably God.

My point in bringing this up is that if the objective of PDF is to study the convergence of politics and technology, then let?s do that.? It doesn?t necessitate bringing ideology into the mix.

I honestly believe that is what Andrew Rasiej and co-Founder Micah Sifry are trying to do.

I in no way believe there is an underlying motivation of promoting the ideals of the left.? And with that being said, heaps of praise must be bestowed on these two gentlemen for their fine work in putting together this conference since 2004.? It is interesting to consider the timing of this conference and the swelling online that began in Summer last year for Obama.? One must consider if more conservative presence (as in the attendees) was existent at last years event, how that may have altered the online dominance of the left during the election.? I don’t want to be ignorant enough to give PDF complete credit for what occurred.? But if 1000 people left the conference, and each one told 10 people, and those 10 people told 10 people…? You could see how easily the ball gets rolling.

The conference, all things considered, was a wonderful treat.? One that I would not have experienced without the Google Fellowship and PDF?s recognition of the work my fellow authors and I have done on this site, which I am of eternal gratitude.

The conference provided tremendous insight into developing web presence, establishing a bond and communication with your audience, and tools that can over night transform a site from drab to dapper.? The information of connecting with constituency and remodeling government websites to better connect and be more transparent with the citizenry is vital to the success of government in general and additionally vital to the revitalization of the GOP and conservatism in general.

This is a conversation that I hope more conservatives take more seriously and can join in on in the future.? It is no secret that the left ignored talk radio early on and allowed the center-right to take a dominating lead.? One that is irrecoverable for the left, as multiple failed attempts with Air America make astoundingly clear.? It should be very becoming very apparent to the right that if they ignore the convergence of technology and politics in the same arrogant manner that the left did to talk radio that at some point the strangle hold in the areas of internet technology and constituency connectivity will equally be unrecoverable.

Show stoppers:

Best Moment: Finally hearing Tara Hunt explain live and in her own words what ?Whuffie? is.? Equally great was getting to finally meet Tara after spending months Twitting with her.

Worst Moment: As mentioned in a previous column, the final panel of day one with Josh Silver, Executive Director of FreePress, was unbearably one sided.? Conservatives question the positions of telecoms as well.? But with no one there to present the center-right view on the future of telecommunications with regard to Internet regulation and expansion, the debate was completely one sided and a slaughter fest for Silver.? My memory may not be entirely accurate, but at one point I believe he rolled them over and actually stuck a fork in the gentlemen from Comcast & AT&T.

My Jaw Dropped To The Floor And The Girl Next To Me With The Mac Had To Pick It Up For Me Award: Easily goes to Apture.? If you are running any sort of online content machine or blog and do not have this application installed you will without a doubt be left in the dust!? This app allows you to finally start linking to outside content without sending your readership away from your site, keeping them right where you want them to be; reading your material and clicking your ads.? If you haven’t noticed, it has already been seamlessly integrated into our site.

Most Fun Presentation: Michael Wesch, The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture and the Politics of Authenticity.

Most Thought Provoking Presentation: Danah Boyd, The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online.

I want to encourage more conservatives to take this intersection more seriously, and see them next year at PDF 2010.

Thanks for a great conference.? I was very happy to be a part of the conversation!

-nick

Verizon, AT&T See the Regulation Writing On The Wall

As published on openmarket.org.

AT&T and Verizon are indicating that there is a chance that they will not seek funds from the broadband stimulus portion of the American Recovery Act.

Verizon Executive VP Thomas Tauke has stated that, ?We don?t have any plans to apply; we also have not made a decision not to apply.?

Similarly, AT&T Senior Executive VP told reporters that, ?We do not have our hand out seeking government funds.?? But, ?[AT&T is] open to considering things that might help the economy and might help our customers at the same time.?

This reluctance to accept government funding shows that major ISPs realize that acceptance of stimulus funds puts them squarely under the FCC Network Neutrality principles.?? These principles could bleed into the other networks?such as Verizon?s FiOS TV or AT&T?s U-Verse?that these large Internet players own. ? Meaning this policy would be the camel?s nose under the tent.? I ?ve previously referred to this potential phenomenon as ?Gateway Neutrality.?

Molly Peterson of Bloomberg News confirms that big ISPs realize the danger associated with accepting recovery funds:

AT&T, Verizon and Comcast Corp., the largest U.S. cable provider, say the rules are unwarranted and would hinder their ability to manage congestion on networks they have spent billions to build.

So, it could be that networks built with stimulus funds would have sub par service when compared to networks built without the funds.? This forces one to wonder what the point of the multi-billion-dollar subsidy is in the first place.

Additionally, were ISPs forced to merge networks that ran under different principles?those that are neutral like Internet service and those that are very non-neutral like television or phone service?very costly problems could emerge.? Trying to slam together TV, Internet, and phone service into one neutral IP-based service could even prove to be financially impossible.

At OpenMarket we often say that government should never be in the business of picking winners.? It appears the winners at broadband build-out will be those who avoid picking government.