Support Google Against China

So I’m not normally a big fan of Google, given the company’s support for net neutrality and the generally liberal tendencies it is associated with. However, yesterday The Washington Post highlighted Google’s opposition to policies of the Chinese government regarding the Internet and Internet-providing companies. Therefore, I applaud Google for standing up against China.

I was listening to the Laura Ingraham show today, and this issue was brought up. Ms. Ingraham suspected that Google will back down in the end, letting China continue its gross human rights and business practices violations. I disagree, however- Google has made a stand, and to go back on that stand would show it to be weak. This would not do anything positive for the company’s standing with non-Chinese markets, whereas standing up against China might actually give Microsoft and other companies the guts to do the same. This could cause major change in certain Chinese policies. Google literally could be the tipping point that causes technology companies to stop allowing the abuses the Chinese government consistently heaps on them.

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

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

?and Net Neutrality for All: An Advisement Against Regulated Broadband Expansion

I’ve recently posted my paper investigating broadband expansion policy within the broadband stimulus portion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 on bpress.

You can find it here:? http://works.bepress.com/nicholas_brown/2/

Here’s the abstract:

Ever since the now YouTube famous Google interview of then Senator Barack Obama promoting broadband Internet deployment nation wide, broadband deployment as part of Obama?s overarching $825 billion stimulus package has been a ready topic of conversation in technology circles. Broadband penetration in the United States is only 25.67% of all Internet connectivity or available to roughly 71 million Americans, ranking the U.S. 19th in the world. Home connections via broadband have risen to 92.4%, creating the argument that the majority of Internet users are engaged in daily activities that require, or at least benefit from, broadband connectivity. Obama has promoted this line of thinking, and believes ?that America should lead the world in broadband penetration and Internet access?. Pushing it even farther, he believes that the Universal Service Fund should be implemented in the expediting of deployment. This line of thinking is more than likely impossible.

This paper looks at the Broadband Stimulus portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to investigate the feasibility of expanding broadband into underdeveloped and undeveloped areas and the forced implementation of Network Neutrality into networks funded by the federal government.

————————-

Be sure to post any feedback you may have. Would love to hear it.

-nick

thelobbyist goes to New York: Personal Democracy Forum 2009

Yours truly will be heading to New York City to attend this years Personal Democracy Forum conference.? I was recently awarded a Google Fellowship to represent thelobbyist.net at the conference.? You can see the list of awardees here. The conference is known as the largest of its type to investigate the intersection of politics and technology.? And this years conference may be the most exciting yet as we have had a huge year with the successful uses of new media/social networking in various campaigns, most notably that of our current president, the coming of age of Twitter in grassroots movements such as this past Springs Tea Parties, and new technology uses in government like we.gov.

If you aren’t familiar with the Personal Democracy Forum conference, you can check up on it here.

On behalf of all of us at thelobbyist, we are honored and humbled by this invitation, and would like to send out a special THANK YOU! to those at Personal Democracy Forum for their selection of thelobbyist.net for a fellowship, and additionally to Google, Inc for providing the fellowship allowing us to attend the event.

Updates will follow to share what we’ve learned about the growing convergence of technology and politics.

-nick

Most Watched City In the World Doesn’t Want to be Watched…by Google

In what has to be one of the greatest ironies in the ‘free’ world, a lobby group in London has issued a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner (ICO) stating that 200 complaints have been filed against the Google “Street View” application because of privacy concerns.? It is curious whether these same citizens are concerned about London’s famed “Ring of Steel” CCTV system being a threat to democracy and their privacy as well.

Maybe the UK government could just contract out Googles services and save everyone time…

-nick

Don’t Be Evil?

Four days ago I woke up to a Wall Street Journal article indicating that Google wanted to join forces with various telecomms to obtain a fast lane to their services.? Now, four days in Internet time is certainly akin to years in meatspace, to be sure.? But before I put my fingers to keyboard I decided to give the issue some careful thought.

My innitial impressions were reactionary and I was somewhat enraged.? I took it somewhat personally at first.? The reason being that a year ago, post-graduate school, I was denied a recommendation from a Google VP for a position in a technology fellowship they were hosting with various tech/Internet think-tanks across the nation because I “Did not share Google’s vision” on Net Neutrality.? The reason for this was because I had written several papers on the subject, which covered Net Neutrality policy across the gamut, from avoiding policy all together by using the precautionary principle, to my suggestions for appropriate regulatory options that would prevent destroying both corporate and garage scientists contributions and innovations to the medium.

I wanted to immediately throw Google under the bus.? This is the company that runs its own blog completely dedicated to public policy and focuses on the Net Neutrality issue a great deal.? The “Don’t be evil” company turning on its previous stance for its own benefit? I honestly wasn’t even surprised.

But here is the thing.? After giving the details of EdgeCaching a going over I don’t have a problem with this.? EdgeCaching, the technique Google is exploring using is a brilliant technology.? And it is something that should not be prevented by Net Neutrality policy.? It is something that should be embraced just like the possibility of fast lane tiers for users that want to pay more because they play time sensitive video games, or watch streaming high def movies.? Future technology and innovation should not be stymied by policy that is not future proof.? And anyone that joins me in a game of Gears of War 2, and gets pawned not by lack of skill, but because of incessant lag can appreciate this.

That being said, I still don’t find it appropriate for Google’s Richard Witt to try and swindle us on the fact that using EdgeCaching would not even possibly by-pass Net Neutrality principles.? Of course, we in the community still do not have a standard definition of Net Neutrality.? The versions of such definition alter depending on who you are talking to or citing.? But generally the definition includes some sort of case for everyone having the freedom or ability to connect equally.? And even these, freedom and ability, are two different things.? Freedom for one company to conduct services in the same way that another does them are certainly different than a company having the means to conduct business.? The point being is that when Witt explains that the implementation is “non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements,” does not mean that any other company could afford to go up against a deal penned with say AT&T and implement the same plan.

Now that may simply be capitalism.? It’s certainly not Google’s fault that they are successful and have the financial means to get certain arrangements and use advanced technology to their benefit.? But on the other hand wouldn’t allowing certainly technologies that give certain content providers a speed advantage over others by-pass our Net Neutrality principle of allowing each of us to connect equally?

The long and short of it is that the WSJ was probably somewhat off in their proposition.? But the longer I study Google’s pattern of behavior my face begins to facilitate the expression of two High Noon gun fighters, eyes focused, squinting in the sun, teeth clinched in cautious consideration of the next move.? Let us not forget this is the same company that blatantly mislead the FCC, and the public less than a year ago, with no real intention of placing a winning bid on the wireless spectrum auction for the sole purpose of forcing the spectrum to be open, thus allowing them the opportunity to benefit from the spectrum in the future without having to actually own it and incur any costs.

Google, Don’t Be Evil.

- nick