Good news if this is for real:Dan Kaminsky, DNS hacker and rootkit infection sleuth, has devised a test for checking to see if your Internet connection is "neutral" -- that is, whether your connection is being filtered, throttled, slowed down, or monkeyed with secretly by your ISP:
Kaminsky calls his technique "TCP-based active probing for faults." He says that the software he's developing will be similar to the Traceroute Internet utility that is used to track what path Internet traffic takes as it hops between two machines on different ends of the network.
But unlike Traceroute, Kaminsky's software will be able to make traffic appear as if it is coming from a particular carrier or is being used for a certain type of application, like VoIP. It will also be able to identify where the traffic is being dropped and could ultimately be used to finger service providers that are treating some network traffic as second-class. If it's easy for people to figure out (and publicize for others) which ISPs are neutral, and which are trying to sell limited access to the internet, it should help market forces to push things towards the neutral side.
Whitacre on neutrality ...
“Some companies want us to be a big dumb pipe that gets bigger and bigger. . . .No one gets a free ride. The American economy doesn’t work that way. . . We are not going to build this with no chance for a return. Those that want to use this will pay.”
It's a series of tubes, not pipes!
Missing link, but I don't think I need to read it.
It's so crazy that people can get away with these obviously wrong arguments. These people must understand that they are lying. Nobody pays for bandwidth? Believe me I am surprised to hear that! Since people aren't paying for bandwidth I challenge whoever wrote that to trade internet connectivity bills with, say, google.com. We'll see if they continue to say that no one pays for bandwidth. Google, and everyone else, pays for every bit of bandwidth. If the providers want to charge more, then they should go ahead and try to charge more. I don't see what the problem is (I mean, except that it's a competitive market and their customers will just jump to another bandwidth supplier.)
Very frustrating.
This is kind of a dumbed-down question, but, my ISP is Comcast, right? If they're throttling my connection and my only choice is to switch to Verizon, and they're also doing it, how is anyone pressured economically? Does this only apply to businesses who do bigger volumes?
Link fixed.
---
I also don't understand why people get away with the "free bandwidth" argument. I'm paying to get access to the internet, google's paying to get access to the internet -- it's already paid for.
---
Tom, what you're asking about is duopolistic behavior. It's amazingly similar to monopolistic behavior. For members of a duopoly, trying to maximize their share of the market is secondary to maximizing total dollars extracted by both members of the duopoly. That behavior maximizes their individual return on investment by keeping costs low and revenue high for each. Thus, both members of a duopoly engage in "soft" competition designed not to kill the golden goose.
When three, four, or more companies are viable suppliers, a different model prevails. Those on the "outs" don't care so much about preserving the total available revenue stream. They just want to get their own piece of the pie. If that means torpedoing the big guys in order to redefine the rules of the market segment, so be it. (The ability of small companies to upset the apple cart is one of the reasons the US economy is dynamic and the Japanese economy isn't. "Creative destruction" is the term.)
When a market is structured such that monopoly or duopoly is inevitable, that's when regulation kicks in. E.g. public utilities (or at least in the not so distant past).
The telcos and cablecos argue that there is competition. But this isn't true for the vast majority of American consumers of broadband IP connections. And as the BW requirements creep up from 1 Mbps, to 2 Mbps, to 5 Mbps, and beyond, the problem will persist despite the introduction alternative wireless technologies.
This is a long way of saying if your choice comes down to one of two very large imcumbents, the actual menu of options varies very little.
It's not dumb, this stuff is confusing. Yes, Comcast is your ISP.
In a sense they are already throttling your connection. They have GB's and GB's of bandwidth, but they only give you a certain amount depending on the speed of service you buy. You pay for 3 mb/s down and 1 mb/sec up, or something like that.
If they sell you that service, and throttle it below that, then I assume they are in breach of your contract and there would be legal ramifications for them. But of course I've never read the actual contract, and maybe it says that they can do whatever they want. In that case though, these arguments are all moot because they would already be able to do whatever they want.
But I don't think they are fighting the net neutrality bills because they want to throttle an end user like you! DSL and cable providers have consistently been increasing their speed offerings in order to attract customers. They are battling each other to get your precious $x/month commitment.
What they are fighting for is so they can try to extort money out of big sites like Google. Or at least this is what everyone claims. But I don't see how they could do that either.
I think your fear is something like: what if all the service providers collude to screw me? And my response is that I'd love to have a net neutrality law to protect us from that - but really it's not completely necessary because we already have laws that should protect us. For instance here it would be some sort of collusion or anti-trust charge if they all worked together to fix prices or systematically lower service beyond what they would be able to do in an open market.
I mean, doesn't the situation you describe above already sound illegal? To me it sounds like: what if all the car companies got together behind my back and decided to raise every base sticker price by 10k. That would be illegal and someone like Spitzer would sue their ass.
But maybe I am too hopeful. I'd like to have a net neutrality law. But I just doubt it will mean the end of the internet if we don't get one. Especially if their are tools like the top link which let people very easily tell exactly the type of service offered by different ISPs.
Thanks Mark, I was writing while you posted. Your explanation is much better than mine. The issue of a duopoly is something I have to think more about.
Another aspect of duopoly, if one is strong and the other is weak, the strong one won't kill of the weak one because they want the window dressing. And the weak one will be cooperative with the strong one, because they know they are vulnerable.
In the cable TV equipment market (both the cable plant and the consumer settop box) there was a fairly stable duoploy of Scientifc Atlanta and General Instrument for a couple of decades. They managed to tie the cable companies (not small players) in fits with all sorts of proprietary bullshit that prevented interoperability with third parties. If TCI, Warner Cable, etc. had trouble breaking free from a duopoly, what hope is there for the average consumer?
|
- jim 8-03-2006 7:14 pm
Whitacre on neutrality ...
“Some companies want us to be a big dumb pipe that gets bigger and bigger. . . .No one gets a free ride. The American economy doesn’t work that way. . . We are not going to build this with no chance for a return. Those that want to use this will pay.”
It's a series of tubes, not pipes!
- mark 8-03-2006 9:26 pm
Missing link, but I don't think I need to read it.
It's so crazy that people can get away with these obviously wrong arguments. These people must understand that they are lying. Nobody pays for bandwidth? Believe me I am surprised to hear that! Since people aren't paying for bandwidth I challenge whoever wrote that to trade internet connectivity bills with, say, google.com. We'll see if they continue to say that no one pays for bandwidth. Google, and everyone else, pays for every bit of bandwidth. If the providers want to charge more, then they should go ahead and try to charge more. I don't see what the problem is (I mean, except that it's a competitive market and their customers will just jump to another bandwidth supplier.)
Very frustrating.
- jim 8-03-2006 9:44 pm
This is kind of a dumbed-down question, but, my ISP is Comcast, right? If they're throttling my connection and my only choice is to switch to Verizon, and they're also doing it, how is anyone pressured economically? Does this only apply to businesses who do bigger volumes?
- tom moody 8-03-2006 9:57 pm
Link fixed.
---
I also don't understand why people get away with the "free bandwidth" argument. I'm paying to get access to the internet, google's paying to get access to the internet -- it's already paid for.
---
Tom, what you're asking about is duopolistic behavior. It's amazingly similar to monopolistic behavior. For members of a duopoly, trying to maximize their share of the market is secondary to maximizing total dollars extracted by both members of the duopoly. That behavior maximizes their individual return on investment by keeping costs low and revenue high for each. Thus, both members of a duopoly engage in "soft" competition designed not to kill the golden goose.
When three, four, or more companies are viable suppliers, a different model prevails. Those on the "outs" don't care so much about preserving the total available revenue stream. They just want to get their own piece of the pie. If that means torpedoing the big guys in order to redefine the rules of the market segment, so be it. (The ability of small companies to upset the apple cart is one of the reasons the US economy is dynamic and the Japanese economy isn't. "Creative destruction" is the term.)
When a market is structured such that monopoly or duopoly is inevitable, that's when regulation kicks in. E.g. public utilities (or at least in the not so distant past).
The telcos and cablecos argue that there is competition. But this isn't true for the vast majority of American consumers of broadband IP connections. And as the BW requirements creep up from 1 Mbps, to 2 Mbps, to 5 Mbps, and beyond, the problem will persist despite the introduction alternative wireless technologies.
This is a long way of saying if your choice comes down to one of two very large imcumbents, the actual menu of options varies very little.
- mark 8-03-2006 10:22 pm
It's not dumb, this stuff is confusing. Yes, Comcast is your ISP.
In a sense they are already throttling your connection. They have GB's and GB's of bandwidth, but they only give you a certain amount depending on the speed of service you buy. You pay for 3 mb/s down and 1 mb/sec up, or something like that.
If they sell you that service, and throttle it below that, then I assume they are in breach of your contract and there would be legal ramifications for them. But of course I've never read the actual contract, and maybe it says that they can do whatever they want. In that case though, these arguments are all moot because they would already be able to do whatever they want.
But I don't think they are fighting the net neutrality bills because they want to throttle an end user like you! DSL and cable providers have consistently been increasing their speed offerings in order to attract customers. They are battling each other to get your precious $x/month commitment.
What they are fighting for is so they can try to extort money out of big sites like Google. Or at least this is what everyone claims. But I don't see how they could do that either.
I think your fear is something like: what if all the service providers collude to screw me? And my response is that I'd love to have a net neutrality law to protect us from that - but really it's not completely necessary because we already have laws that should protect us. For instance here it would be some sort of collusion or anti-trust charge if they all worked together to fix prices or systematically lower service beyond what they would be able to do in an open market.
I mean, doesn't the situation you describe above already sound illegal? To me it sounds like: what if all the car companies got together behind my back and decided to raise every base sticker price by 10k. That would be illegal and someone like Spitzer would sue their ass.
But maybe I am too hopeful. I'd like to have a net neutrality law. But I just doubt it will mean the end of the internet if we don't get one. Especially if their are tools like the top link which let people very easily tell exactly the type of service offered by different ISPs.
- jim 8-03-2006 10:31 pm
Thanks Mark, I was writing while you posted. Your explanation is much better than mine. The issue of a duopoly is something I have to think more about.
- jim 8-03-2006 10:33 pm
Another aspect of duopoly, if one is strong and the other is weak, the strong one won't kill of the weak one because they want the window dressing. And the weak one will be cooperative with the strong one, because they know they are vulnerable.
In the cable TV equipment market (both the cable plant and the consumer settop box) there was a fairly stable duoploy of Scientifc Atlanta and General Instrument for a couple of decades. They managed to tie the cable companies (not small players) in fits with all sorts of proprietary bullshit that prevented interoperability with third parties. If TCI, Warner Cable, etc. had trouble breaking free from a duopoly, what hope is there for the average consumer?
- mark 8-03-2006 10:56 pm