I'm trying to get worked up about this network neutrality stuff. I firmly believe the big telcos will try to screw the small guy if they can. Discriminating against VOIP clients - by introducing jitter, or whatever - seems to be the common example since obviously the telcos don't want you making free VOIP phone calls over their lines. But in that case we'll just encrypt our VOIP streams and run them on non standard ports. This is exactly what BitTorrent users are now doing to fight ISPs starting to throttle BT traffic. And given the robustness of client CPU power, encrypting all our communication streams would be very easy. It would also have all sorts of follow on advantages for the user in terms of security.
But maybe I'm wrong on this? Can the telcos somehow still discriminate against types of services if all traffic is encrypted? Probably I'm missing something, but this just sounds like another arms race that the forces of control will never win. I'd like to have some law protecting us, but I'm skeptical that we really need it.
Unless they outlaw encryption? Seems pretty unlikely. Or what am I missing?
I think you're talking about the ability of the hacker elite to evade these clampdowns and I hope it's true and that I always have someone in that elite as a close friend.
For most mortals, though, their Internet experience will be controlled by their set top box and I think we'll see a dramatic falloff in great amateur content without some guidelines in place.
The great thing about the debate is it's flushing out the true intentions of these creeps and how utterly ignorant their Congressional lackeys are (Stevens).
To the extent the debate makes more people aware of what the Net is (and how fragile it might be if the pigs get to feed freely) I think it's good. As Cory Doctorow says, though, Satan is in the details of writing neutrality into law. I only know the rudiments of what's needed.
Yeah, I guess you're right. But to take the BitTorrent example again, it's not exactly the hacker elite. Okay, it took the elite (Bram Cohen) to put encryption into the package - but from there it's just clicking a checkbox in preferences. And there's no reason BitTorrent (or Skype, or whomever) couldn't just turn encryption on by default.
But I'm not a network engineer (or I shouldn't be!) so maybe I'm missing something where the headers give the game away. But that's not what I've been led to believe with BT.
Still, there is the other issue of site discrimination, as opposed to application discrimination (instead of going after VOIP, or BitTorrent, they go after particular sites like youtube.com.) Obviously encryption doesn't help here, because you can't encrypt your request or no one will be able to pass it along. But is that really so much of a problem?
Take us for example. How could they hurt us? We only use about 256 kilobits per second. What are they going to do? Throttle us back to 128? I mean, we are just so small I don't see how they could "make us slower". We are already infinitely slow compared to the big boys, and that is just fine for what we are doing.
Youtube needs more bandwidth, sure, but they aren't really a little guy, are they?
I'm not saying there is no issue here, because obviously there is. But I think there are some alarmist arguments floating around that over state the case. "They" can't crush independents, because the resources independents use are so so so small. And if you get big enough to matter (in a global bandwidth sort of way) then you are either big enough to deal with paying a little more, or you're so big they would never dare cut you off.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Oh, I guess I never stated my actual point. I think the whole net neutrality thing, from the telcos perspective, is 100% about VOIP. They want to stop VOIP (unless it's their VOIP.) I don't think they really care about anything else.
And while I would very much like for them not to stop VOIP, I just don't believe that the fight is about protecting independent content on line. Independent content will be fine. AOL failed to make a walled garden and so will the telcos (not sure telco is the right word - I mean the big internet service providers.) How can they deliver a walled service? People are going to buy internet access without any porn? Without youtube? myspace? google? I don't think so. Certainly not without porn at any rate.
VOIP is a big deal, given the revenue voice generates.
I think pay-per-view (PPV) is also something they care about. If it's easier and more reliable to get content from the "approved" sources of PPV, then most consumers will take the easy way out.
on-line debate at CNET with Scott Cleland of netcompetition.org triggered by this post
excerpt from original post ...
You know, I wasn't really sure that Net neutrality legislation was such a good idea. Regulation of the Internet in any form seems scary, a bit hasty, and potentially dangerous. So I was holding out for a hero--maybe the FCC (PDF link), or just a groundswell of grassroots activism. But I can't wait any longer. I've decided to set aside my misgivings about overregulation. I now believe that we must have legislation to protect the open and equal nature of the Internet, or, sadly, the Internet must be regulated as a utility, just like the highways and the water pipes--and we must have one or the other right away. Why? Because I really believe that the telcos and the cable companies pushing for a tiered Internet will cheerfully turn the Internet into a lopsided disaster of have and have-not traffic that just happens to be filled with perfectly accessible content created by those very same telcos and cable companies. Basically, there's a pile of money on the table, and these folks are proving every day that they cannot be trusted.
The fact that the hearings were packed with their lobbyists shows they they're interested in gaming the system. Where were Google's lobbyists? I think the idea that the service providers are going to let this pass and then sue under antitrust is naive. It could take years to develop an anti-monopolistic theory of neutrality in the courts. Especially with the Bush justice department setting the tone (allowing AT&T to reconstitute itself, etc).
Here's another, shorter take on my argument: any geographic location with competition for internet connectivity will exert tremendous market pressure on service providers to offer free (as in speech, not beer) internet access; any geographic location with no connectivity competition will be a poor rural region that will be a crappy market for expensive walled garden content.
The California energy "crisis" is a good example of unencumbered "competition" when there are too few suppliers to make a true market.
For internet access, there are many areas where there's not engouth choice. With WiMax, EV-DO, etc., things may be changing. But there are too many choke points in the hands to too few big companies right now.
Debating this guy is like shooting fish in a barrel. The CNET editor is very good, but the telco shill is so bad even I can slap him around. The quality of his arguments runs the gamut from "specious" to "unmitigated bullshit".
But from reading other comments, it seems like the telcos are doing a good job spreading FUD.
Ted Stevens remixed from boldheaded
first time ive seen this notice attached to a torrent listing. DISCLAIMER: Unless your client supports encryption (make sure its enabled), please do not attempt to download this torrent until there as at least one other seeder as you will not be able to connect to me. Apparently, my ISP (Adelphia) has changed their policies regarding bandwidth usage for torrents and now no longer allows users to seed using traditional methods. I’m hoping that by switching to uTorrent and enabling encryption that I can circumvent Adelphia’s “packet-shaping.”
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Ted-Stevens-.mov
|
But maybe I'm wrong on this? Can the telcos somehow still discriminate against types of services if all traffic is encrypted? Probably I'm missing something, but this just sounds like another arms race that the forces of control will never win. I'd like to have some law protecting us, but I'm skeptical that we really need it.
Unless they outlaw encryption? Seems pretty unlikely. Or what am I missing?
- jim 7-11-2006 6:37 pm
I think you're talking about the ability of the hacker elite to evade these clampdowns and I hope it's true and that I always have someone in that elite as a close friend.
For most mortals, though, their Internet experience will be controlled by their set top box and I think we'll see a dramatic falloff in great amateur content without some guidelines in place.
The great thing about the debate is it's flushing out the true intentions of these creeps and how utterly ignorant their Congressional lackeys are (Stevens).
To the extent the debate makes more people aware of what the Net is (and how fragile it might be if the pigs get to feed freely) I think it's good. As Cory Doctorow says, though, Satan is in the details of writing neutrality into law. I only know the rudiments of what's needed.
- tom moody 7-11-2006 7:28 pm
Yeah, I guess you're right. But to take the BitTorrent example again, it's not exactly the hacker elite. Okay, it took the elite (Bram Cohen) to put encryption into the package - but from there it's just clicking a checkbox in preferences. And there's no reason BitTorrent (or Skype, or whomever) couldn't just turn encryption on by default.
But I'm not a network engineer (or I shouldn't be!) so maybe I'm missing something where the headers give the game away. But that's not what I've been led to believe with BT.
Still, there is the other issue of site discrimination, as opposed to application discrimination (instead of going after VOIP, or BitTorrent, they go after particular sites like youtube.com.) Obviously encryption doesn't help here, because you can't encrypt your request or no one will be able to pass it along. But is that really so much of a problem?
Take us for example. How could they hurt us? We only use about 256 kilobits per second. What are they going to do? Throttle us back to 128? I mean, we are just so small I don't see how they could "make us slower". We are already infinitely slow compared to the big boys, and that is just fine for what we are doing.
Youtube needs more bandwidth, sure, but they aren't really a little guy, are they?
I'm not saying there is no issue here, because obviously there is. But I think there are some alarmist arguments floating around that over state the case. "They" can't crush independents, because the resources independents use are so so so small. And if you get big enough to matter (in a global bandwidth sort of way) then you are either big enough to deal with paying a little more, or you're so big they would never dare cut you off.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
- jim 7-11-2006 8:14 pm
Oh, I guess I never stated my actual point. I think the whole net neutrality thing, from the telcos perspective, is 100% about VOIP. They want to stop VOIP (unless it's their VOIP.) I don't think they really care about anything else.
And while I would very much like for them not to stop VOIP, I just don't believe that the fight is about protecting independent content on line. Independent content will be fine. AOL failed to make a walled garden and so will the telcos (not sure telco is the right word - I mean the big internet service providers.) How can they deliver a walled service? People are going to buy internet access without any porn? Without youtube? myspace? google? I don't think so. Certainly not without porn at any rate.
- jim 7-11-2006 8:20 pm
VOIP is a big deal, given the revenue voice generates.
I think pay-per-view (PPV) is also something they care about. If it's easier and more reliable to get content from the "approved" sources of PPV, then most consumers will take the easy way out.
- mark 7-11-2006 9:10 pm
on-line debate at CNET with Scott Cleland of netcompetition.org triggered by this post
excerpt from original post ...
- mark 7-12-2006 2:18 am
The fact that the hearings were packed with their lobbyists shows they they're interested in gaming the system. Where were Google's lobbyists? I think the idea that the service providers are going to let this pass and then sue under antitrust is naive. It could take years to develop an anti-monopolistic theory of neutrality in the courts. Especially with the Bush justice department setting the tone (allowing AT&T to reconstitute itself, etc).
- tom moody 7-12-2006 2:54 am
Here's another, shorter take on my argument: any geographic location with competition for internet connectivity will exert tremendous market pressure on service providers to offer free (as in speech, not beer) internet access; any geographic location with no connectivity competition will be a poor rural region that will be a crappy market for expensive walled garden content.
- jim 7-12-2006 3:49 am
The California energy "crisis" is a good example of unencumbered "competition" when there are too few suppliers to make a true market.
For internet access, there are many areas where there's not engouth choice. With WiMax, EV-DO, etc., things may be changing. But there are too many choke points in the hands to too few big companies right now.
- mark 7-12-2006 4:33 am
Debating this guy is like shooting fish in a barrel. The CNET editor is very good, but the telco shill is so bad even I can slap him around. The quality of his arguments runs the gamut from "specious" to "unmitigated bullshit".
But from reading other comments, it seems like the telcos are doing a good job spreading FUD.
- mark 7-12-2006 9:54 am
Ted Stevens remixed from boldheaded
- mark 7-12-2006 10:55 am
first time ive seen this notice attached to a torrent listing.
- dave 7-14-2006 5:13 am
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Ted-Stevens-.mov
- sally mckay 7-14-2006 5:38 pm