I usually get to go to the Heritage bloggers briefing, and I always enjoy it. Today, though, I learned something shocking: apparently, there are conservatives who aren't in favor of net neutrality.
This just doesn't make any sense. The story of the Internet is the prime example of how markets are supposed to work: anyone can enter, and the best ideas, content, and products win out. If I have a brilliant idea, I'll be wildly successful (Google); if I have a terrible idea, I'll fail miserably (Pets.com).
I can put anything on the Internet, because there are no gatekeepers on content. I still have to find viewers, but if I provide a better product, I'll get them. The only advantage that established companies have is their brand recognition and that doesn't stick around for long. What search engine did you use before Google? Do you even remember?
So why do we need net neutrality legislation? Because this entire paradigm -- all the innovation this delicate balance of market forces can foster -- is now threatened.
When Good ISPs Go Bad: A Cautionary Tale
Say my ISP wants to make an extra buck. MySpace offers them ten million dollars to speed up connections to MySpace and slow down connections to Facebook. Later on, I want to waste some time on the web. MySpace is so much faster than Facebook, so I'm going to do it there instead. Now my decision is based on who paid my ISP more, not the content of the site. This hurts my ability to make choices, and the quality of the goods on the market.
Now my ISP has found this blog post complaining about their relationship with MySpace. They're not pleased, so they decide to prevent their customers from accessing TechRepublican. (Great Firewall of China, anyone?)
A few weeks later, my ISP announces that it's got a fantastic new advance: documents and e-mails will travel much faster than before, at the expense of YouTube videos -- the folks using YouTube are probably just procrastinating. Businesses and grandmothers are happy, but there's a problem. To do this, my ISP has to be able to see what's inside my packets. It's reading my data.
This is all legal.
Opponents of net neutrality say I might be protected from some of these abuses by existing anti-trust laws, though at the Heritage briefing former Clinton aide Mike McCurry wasn't quite sure. Anti-trust law, however, won't make sure that ISPs do what they're supposed to: treat all packets equally.
Mr. McCurry thinks we should develop "smart pipes," as opposed to the "dumb pipes" we have now. (Doesn't he know it's a series of tubes?) The goal is to make sure that important information can travel more quickly. Unfortunately, there's only one way to do this: deep packet inspection. "Smart pipes" only work by inspecting the data that travels through them, and that only works by violating our privacy.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!" net neutrality opponents assure us, and after all, no one would ever dream of using our private information against us. Really, we should just sit back, relax, and let all the innovation be strangled out of the marketplace. Also, I got this really great offer from the Prime Minister of Nigeria. All he needs is my bank information...
Net neutrality legislation isn't regulation for the Internet. It allows for a level playing field that lets the Internet work as a model of free market efficiency. And that's something every conservative can get behind.
Comments
100% Agree
As free-market conservative I completely agree that net neutrality is an extension of my core beliefs as they relate to the exchange of goods and ideas. I'm afraid many Republican's have been polluted by Telecom lobbying (surprising I know).
Wonderfully clear explanation of net neutrality.
I enjoy your blog. Tech and Politics are my 2 favorite things.
Tsudohnimh - KnowtheNetwork.com
Since you got there late, you seem to have missed some things...
There are more than a few things you got wrong with this post. I'll run through a few...
First, James Gattuso started with the example you offered above, and pointed out that was really the argument behind net neutrality several years ago, and is very rarely cited now. I noticed you came in fairly late, so you may have missed that whole bit of context.
The debate over net neut has generally shifted from the one you offer to one of network management. The FCC and Congress have proposed to enshrine principles of net neutrality in law that carry an exception for "reasonable network management". However, they have failed to provide any definition at all of what that means. They frequently cite a list of possible exceptions (tele-medicine, VOIP, emergency services) but have not explained what sort of government entity they're going to create to define and enforce those exemptions.
When I close my eyes and imagine what this looks like, I picture Steve Chen and Chad Hurley (circa 2003) sitting in front of a government committee trying to describe the concept of YouTube. The body assembled stares blankly before finally posing the question, "Why do we need an exemption for video on the Internet? We have the TV for video. Who on earth would watch video online?"
If you don't believe someone would ask questions like that, I'll refer you to your "tubes" reference above.
Second, we don't have "dumb pipes" now, so your suggestion that the status quo be maintained is actually arguing for smart pipes, but not smarter pipes. Your traffic is already managed to ensure exactly the opposite of what you prescribe to the ISP choices. For instance, over the years video, VOIP and other latency sensitive services have been given priority over things like e-mail and page loads for text based sites. Together with advances in video codecs, they have fundamentally altered the way we consume video.
I think you were probably about thirteen when video first became a "big thing" online in the late 1990s. At that time the video player was a very small thumbnail and optimized for 56k connections. When you started to play, you either had to wait for the full download or you sat and watch a "buffering..." message until it began to play. Your suggestion that somehow e-mail would be given priority over YouTube is exactly the opposite of what has happened. You enjoy smooth playback because of advances in video compression and video prioritization.
Third, the definition of "your privacy" that you're using seems to be fatally flawed. I'm not aware of any court anywhere that includes packet filtering in their definition of personally identifiable information. Knowing that a particular packet is video or text is not the same as knowing whether a video is an episode of Ask a Ninja or porn.
Fourth, if the question of the FTC has authority to enforce anti-trust laws is ambiguous, you could make it explicit much easier than you could establish a new government entity (or expand an existing one) to include the Bureau of Internet content.
Finally, prior to Google I used MSN and Lycos. You see, I have been online for 16 years now, and I have a lot of experience watching the Internet develop. When I was setting up my first dial-up Internet account in 1992, I think you were probably about six. That was two years before Andreessen released the browser.
I apologize for being condescending about your age, but the fact is there are a lot of us who remember what search engine we used and remember what dial-up was like on a 2400 baud modem. I remember the quality we had under common carrier. It was the absence of the same type of common carrier restrictions that allowed cable broadband to flourish. At the time of the Brand X decision, cable had nearly two-thirds of the broadband market.
When common carrier was lifted, that number began to fall because the telephone companies began to invest in better, faster networks - an investment they were not likely to make had they been forced to continue with open access. (Full disclosure, I work for the cable industry, but would adamantly oppose net neutrality regardless).
So forgive me if I respectfully disagree with your entire premise. Your argument displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the technology involved and the history of the Internet. It indicates a lack of respect for what life was like on dial-up. It fails to recognize the lack of regulation that spurred the development and adoption of broadband to begin with.
Yep, I'm young.
Show me a person under the age of 30 who doesn’t favor some variation of net neutrality.
I’m sure that, since you work for cable companies, you have a very different perspective on this, but I’m not arguing for the creation of an Internet regulatory body, or a federal mandates on content. If existing anti-trust laws cover my concern about a tiered system, I’m happy to hear it, but despite a good deal of research -- and a direct question to Mr. McCurry -- I haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer.
He said himself that he doesn’t really understand the issue, and he’s the co-chair of the Hands Off Coalition!
As for the privacy question, you have to distinguish between shallow packet inspection, which ISPs have to use, and deep packet inspection. Shallow packet inspection concerns only the headers, the control information that the network needs to deliver the packet -- and this allows basic sorting between e-mail, video, etc.
Deep packet inspection, which is my concern, means looking at the content of the packets too. That’s a recipe for data mining, identity theft, and surveillance, none of which I’m particularly eager to see.
Thanks for commenting! It’s always nice to see that people are reading my stuff.
Yep, I'm young.
Show me a person under the age of 30 who doesn’t favor some variation of net neutrality.
I’m sure that, since you work for cable companies, you have a very different perspective on this, but I’m not arguing for the creation of an Internet regulatory body, or a federal mandates on content. If existing anti-trust laws cover my concern about a tiered system, I’m happy to hear it, but despite a good deal of research -- and a direct question to Mr. McCurry -- I haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer.
He said himself that he doesn’t really understand the issue, and he’s the co-chair of the Hands Off Coalition!
As for the privacy question, you have to distinguish between shallow packet inspection, which ISPs have to use, and deep packet inspection. Shallow packet inspection concerns only the headers, the control information that the network needs to deliver the packet -- and this allows basic sorting between e-mail, video, etc.
Deep packet inspection, which is my concern, means looking at the content of the packets too. That’s a recipe for data mining, identity theft, and surveillance, none of which I’m particularly eager to see.
Thanks for commenting! It’s always nice to see that people are reading my stuff.
People under 30
Actually, polling indicates that the vast majority of all people have never heard of, and don't understand net neutrality. Of the under 30 crowd, the number that support it is around 35% (which is still higher than those who don't), but the majority don't know what it is or understand it.
That's the problem with legislating a nebulous concept. Net Neutrality has become the Rorschach test of telecom policy - people see in its definition whatever they feel is wrong with broadband. Since there has been so little activity that serves to define actual behavior, people can apply whatever they want to it. That's why the deifinition has changed so dramatically over the years.
As an example, I had a conversation with a guy via my blog who told me "nobody could possibly oppose ISPs selling tiered services for low-bandwidth users versus high bandwidth users", yet I have seen countless people oppose them. Before Time Warner announced their test in Beaumont Texas, many net neutrality proponents were suggesting exactly that. The minute an ISP decided to test the theory, many of the exact same people decried it.
If you ask 10 people to define net neutrality, you'll get 15 different definitions. Do you really want to try to write a law on a concept that undefined?
As for Mike, I love the guy to death. He and I worked together about 6 years ago and I've always had great respect for him. However, I would never ask him to explain deep packet inspection. That's just not his thing. On the same note, however, I'd never ask the CTO of a company, or the network admin, to lobby the Hill or head up an advocacy organization and explain the nuances of telecom law.
61bahzxoa1
pka44zn30fuhjdhp1 http://www.756527.com/1088658.html 2jvilcwje21rk6
Post new comment