| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2008/12/15-29 [Computer/Networking] UID:52254 Activity:kinda low |
12/15 ausman, maybe this can help form your views on net neutrality:
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html
if you're bored, skip down to the iFilm example.
\_ jim: consider the case of a private electrical utility:
do you believe in "current neurality"? i agree if say GOOG
were to put in a giant server complex creating a sudden local
demand shock the utility could not have planned on, perhaps
they should talk and work something out ... it's unfair to
make the rest of the area pay the consequences of the shortfall
or to obligate the utility to give google whatever they demand.
but that's a different case than saying we're going to turn the
power on and off a couple of times a day to google's data center
unless they sign up for out "premium current delivery service".
i personally think this is a case of alllowing price discrimination
and a shakedown and not a case of an unfair damand shock which comes
and a shakedown and not a case of an unfair demand shock which comes
out of nowhere. as i said before in the motd [that comment may have
been deleted], classical supply side price discrimination allows
the producer to suck up consumer surplus and convert it into
revenue.
\_ Yeah, like I have said, I haven't entirely worked out all the
issues, which are actually pretty complicated. I wonder if most
NN supporters are mostly just ignorant about how the Internet
NN supporters are just ignorant about how the Internet
works and have therefore decided to take a simplistic "every
packet is sacred" approach. There is already quite a bit of
pricing discrimination going on in the Net, try connecting from
an Internet cafe in Cairo if you don't believe me. Why is it
okay to drop packets because of a congested router (often a
deliberately congested router, so as to reduce bandwidth costs)
deliberately congested router, so as to limit bandwidth costs)
but not okay to do traffic shaping? And do they really think that
it is immoral to blackhole known spammers and botnets? Maybe
we just need to switch from a 95% of peak load model of charging
for net bandwidth, to a total bits delivered charge. If you want
to talk about "unfair" is it fair to make the majority of
Internet users have to pay to build out the infrastructure for
the small minority that runs bittorrent?
\- if bittorrent were the problem they were trying to solve, te
solution wouldnt be shakedown the people with deep pockets.
\_ This is true, the "right" solution from my perspective,
is to charge people for the bits they use, instead of
trying to strongarm the service providers.
\_ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html
Even Google wants its own pipes now.
\_ That article is shit. Google wants caching servers like
Akamai. -tom
\_ That article is being strongly disputed by most of the
people it talks about.
\_ So it is okay for GOOG to build out a private, proprietary
network from their content distribution location to a Tier
One NAP and then sign an agreement for them to get dedicated
network connectivity there, which speeds up their content
delivery to end users, but it is *not* okay for them to
pay for a Tier One ISP to just carry the bits faster from
end to end? Is that what you are suggesting?
\_ You're begging the question. -tom
\_ What do you think that "caching servers like Akamai"
entails? How would you describe their CDN network?
\_ I certainly wouldn't describe it as having its
own pipes. -tom
\_ Certainly some of the CDNs do. Limelight does.
Maybe Akamai does not.
\_ How about if GOOG then expanded that network all the
way to your house and offered you 100% free GOOGnet
connectivity, but only with their content on it? Should
that be legal?
\_ What if you could use Monopoly money to pay for it,
wouldn't that be cool? -tom
\_ And then if after you started using your GOOGnet
connection, paid for by monopoly money, what if
GOOG started carrying other traffic on it, for
free, but not as fast as the GOOG stuff. Would
it still be cool? Just questions...
\_ If anyone who wanted to could install last
mile cable that would be fine, however
in the real world that's just not feasable,
and that's why like net neutrality is so
important.
\_ Perhaps you didn't know about GOOG's offer
to provide municipal free wireless to the
entire City of San Francisco.
\_ "Anyone who wanted" is key. Wireless
bandwidth is very limited.
\_ And the offer wasn't fulfilled --oj
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/31/BUT6RSDTU.DTL
\_ Yes, I am aware of this, but it shows that the idea is more than just
a hypothetical. It is possible that this will happen sooner or later.
\_ Not all hypotheticals are worth considering.
\_ Yes, but what if they were? |
| 7/8 |
|
| lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html To those who were angry, I hope you will direct any anger at the Wall Street Journal after you read what follows. The article is an indirect effort to gin up a drama about a drama about an alleged shift in Obama's policies about network neutrality. That Google allegedly is negotiating for faster service on some network pipes. And that "prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject." Me And of course, because I have "softened" my views about network neutrality, and because I advised the Obama campaign about technology issues during the primary, it follows (and obviously so) that Obama too must be going soft on network neutrality. I don't know what Google is doing, though if they are trying to negotiate exclusive deals for privileged access, that shows exactly why we need network neutrality regulation. And I've not seen anything during the Obama campaign or from the transition to indicate it has shifted its view about network neutrality at all. But I do know something about my own views, and what the Journal has done here is really extraordinary. It is true, as the Journal reports, that I have stated that network providers should be free to charge different rates for different service -- "so long," the Journal quotes, "as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it." But the whole punch of the story comes from the suggestion that my position is something new. As the Journal states, Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service. And: Stanford's Mr Lessig, for one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. testified in 2006, in my view that minimal strategy right now marries the basic principles of "Internet Freedom" first outlined by Chairman Michael Powell, and modified more recently by the FCC, to one additional requirement -- a ban on discriminatory access tiering. While broadband providers should be free, in my view, to price consumer access to the Internet differently -- setting a higher price, for example, for faster or greater access -- they should not be free to apply discriminatory surcharges to those who make content or applications available on the Internet. As I testified, in my view, such "access tiering" risks creating a strong incentive among Internet providers to favor some companies over others; that incentive in turn tends to support business models that exploit scarcity rather than abundance. If Google, for example, knew it could buy a kind of access for its video content that iFilm couldn't, then it could exploit its advantage to create an even greater disadvantage for its competitors; network providers in turn could deliver on that disadvantage only if the non-privileged service was inferior to the privileged service. That's the same thing I said to the FCC in its hearing at Stanford. There I distinguish between "zero price regulations" (such as Markey's bill (which I say I am against)) and what I called "zero discriminatory surcharge rules" (which I say I am for). The zero discriminatory surcharge rules are just that -- rules against discriminatory surcharges -- charging Google something different from what a network charges iFilm. The regulation I call for is a "MFN" requirement -- that everyone has the right to the rates of the most favored nation. This is precisely the position that the Journal breathlessly attributes to me today. It represents no change -- no "softening" no "shift" in my views. Some friends in the network neutrality movement as well as some scholars believe it is wrong -- that it doesn't go far enough. But the suggestion that the position is "recent" is baseless. Seth Finkelstein: FYI, from the other "side", Richard Bennett agrees with you that the WSJ article is (my characterization) reporting nothing new as if it were major news. com/blog/2008/12/google-gambles-in-casablanca/ "Google has been caught red-handed negotiating deals with ISPs to host servers inside the building, just like Akamai does. html That said, it's hard for me to see the difference to the end user between caching (like with a CDN like Akamai) and a non-neutral network that had preferential packet routing. December 15, 2008 3:45 PM Anonymous: I have first hand experience of the WSJ interviewing me and writing an article about me and other people who do what I do. When the interviewer sent me a fact checking email, I corrected him on some facts, mostly business numbers, and told him that what he had was only partially true, but about 10% of the picture, which made the article misleading if not technically false. He said his editor didn't want to change the focus of the story. The national attention was great, so overall it was worth it and I don't want to appear ungrateful for the article, but it was still disappointing and I have to spend time explaining what was wrong with the article to anyone who mentions it. December 15, 2008 3:56 PM Thomas Hill: One must rember that the Wall Street Journal has now become another political instrument Of Rupert Murdock and as Well as the Fair and Balanced network Fox. To bad the rest of America could not wake up to this fact and see that our media is not run by real news people, but those who want to use it for their own political gain and wealth. obvious: Please stop calling it the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal was sold to News Corp, the owners of Fox News. If you simply call it by it's proper name, it's simple to understand what is happening to you. The Wall Street Journal has a fine history and reputation. Please do not confuse it with the latter day incarnation, the Fox Street Journal. Shelley: The WSJ corporate, conservative bias was evident from the coverage of the election--Obama could do no right, McCain could do no wrong. What's disappointing, though, is now much attention this article is getting. A note refuting the article from you and Google should be sufficient, no reason for the rest of us to pile on. December 15, 2008 6:56 PM Adrian Lopez: "The zero discriminatory surcharge rules are just that -- rules against discriminatory surcharges -- charging Google something different from what a network charges iFilm." In that case, Google can offer to pay ISPs a sum it knows iFilm can't afford, getting all the benefits of an exclusive deal with none of the liabilities. ISPs should not be allowed to bill twice for the same bandwidth, and content providers shouldn't be put in a position where they need to strike deals with the myriad providers that may want a cut of your profits in exchange for not throttling your packets. December 15, 2008 7:04 PM kt: To add to Gen Kanai: Large content providers will tend to go for the akamai or limelight solution and not build their own simply to avoid keeping staff and infrastructure current. I'd suggest that those who can afford it would go the CDN route first over their own so that they don't have to specialize in things they're not good at. Those providers will want to deliver best experience to end user, so that advertising is maximized. To have end users then *paying* for extra bandwidth is just trying to make money like off of cell phone ringtones. As long as I'm able to upload data, and have a relatively good connection for a small number of users, that's what I'm for. As soon as I have a bigger audience, that I can make money from, I have no problem paying for better access for the content. December 15, 2008 7:07 PM John: While the WSJ certainly is not the most credible and always more accurate source of news, I find that it is usually very comprehensive. For the detractors and people who claim that it has changed since being bought out by News Corp, what do you read? December 15, 2008 7:20 PM szlevi: Thanks for the clarification, Mr Lessig though I knew from the beginning it's a pretty obvious attempt to rewrite history - hey, what's new here? We have an article, written by some rent-a-journo corpo... |
| online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username The email address you have entered is already in use. CHRISTOPHER RHOADS The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers. At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line. Lawrence Lessig, speaking at Stanford University But phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers should share in their network costs, particularly with Internet traffic growing by more than 50% annually, according to estimates. Carriers say that to keep up with surging traffic, driven mainly by the proliferation of online video, they need to boost revenue to upgrade their networks. One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality. "If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject. The contentious issue has wide ramifications for the Internet as a platform for new businesses. If companies like Google succeed in negotiating preferential treatment, the Internet could become a place where wealthy companies get faster and easier access to the Web than less affluent ones, according to advocates of network neutrality. For computer users, it could mean that Web sites by companies not able to strike fast-lane deals will respond more slowly than those by companies able to pay. in cable television, would control both distribution and content -- and much of what users can access, according to neutrality advocates. The developments could test Mr Obama's professed commitment to network neutrality. "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality." Barack Obama But Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service. Mr Lessig, who has known President-elect Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago, has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry. "What they're talking about is selling you the right to skip ahead in the line," says Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It would mean the first part of your business plan would be a deal with AT&T to get into their super-tier -- that is anathema to a culture of innovation." Advocates of network neutrality believe it has helped the Internet drive the technology revolution of the past two decades, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. The concept of network neutrality originated with the phone business. The nation's longtime telephone monopoly, nicknamed Ma Bell, and its regional successors were prohibited from giving any public phone call preference in how quickly it was connected. When the Internet first boomed in the 1990s, content largely traveled via telephone line, and the rule survived by default. In August 2005, amid a deregulatory environment, the FCC weakened network neutrality to a set of four "guiding principles." The step had the effect of making the FCC's power to enforce network neutrality subject to interpretation, emboldening those looking for ways around it. Stirring the waters further, major phone companies including AT&T and Verizon announced they intended to create new fast lanes on the Internet -- and would charge content companies a toll to use it. They claimed Internet companies had been getting a free ride. A diverse group including Internet companies Google, Microsoft and Amazon joined the likes of the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association and the pop singer Moby in what they characterized as a fight to "save the Internet." The coalition claimed such steps could endanger freedom of speech. Advocates of network neutrality also claimed that dismantling the rule would be the first step toward distributors gaining control over content, since they could dictate traffic according to fees charged to content providers. The fortunes of a certain Web site, in other words, might depend on how much it could pay network providers, rather than on its popularity. That concern would grow if the carriers themselves offer content, which some have tried, with mixed success. AT&T, the country's largest broadband provider, recently launched its own online video service, called VideoCrawler, to compete with YouTube and others. "One way AT&T can win that competition is to give their own video service preferential treatment on their network," says Robert Topolski, a networking engineer based in Portland, Ore. An AT&T spokesman says the company has no plans to give VideoCrawler preferential treatment on its network. Mr Topolski discovered that Comcast was slowing a video file-sharing service called BitTorrent. That discovery eventually led to sanctions against Comcast by the FCC. Comcast has appealed the decision, arguing the FCC did not have the authority to make such a ruling. In 2006, Microsoft felt strongly enough about the issue that it wrote Congress to declare that saving network neutrality "could dictate whether the US will continue to lead the world in Internet-related technologies." Legislation to codify network neutrality failed to pass, and carriers backed off their plans for a tiered Internet. During his presidential campaign, Mr Obama spoke frequently about the Internet, which was a critical tool in his grass-roots effort to reach new voters, and the importance of network neutrality. "Once providers start to give privilege to some Web sites and applications over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out," he told Google employees a year ago when he campaigned at the company. Obama Advisers But some of those who advise the new president on technology have changed their view on network neutrality. Stanford's Mr Lessig, for one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. At a conference, he argued that carriers won't become kingmakers so long as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it. "There are good reasons to be able to prioritize traffic," Mr Lessig said later in an interview. "If everyone had to pay the same rates for postal service, than you wouldn't be able to differentiate between sending a greeting card to your grandma versus sending an overnight letter to your lawyer." Some telecom experts say that broadband is the most profitable service offered by phone and cable companies, and they are simply trying to offset declining revenue from their traditional phone business. In the two years since Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other Internet companies lined up in favor of network neutrality, the landscape has changed. The Internet companies have formed partnerships with phone and cable companies, making them more dependent on one another. Microsoft, which appealed to Congress to save network neutrality just two years ago, has changed its position completely. "Network neutr... |
| www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/31/BUT6RSDTU.DTL But now the future of municipal wireless Internet access is in doubt, not only in San Francisco, but across the country. Google's downfall in San Francisco was the result of financial troubles by its partner EarthLink, the company chosen by the city to build the network. On Wednesday, while awaiting final approval from the Board of Supervisors, EarthLink notified the mayor that it was pulling out after deciding that the system wasn't financially viable. That Google was interested in municipal wireless Internet access, known as Wi-Fi, shocked many when the company submitted its initial bid two years ago to offer free connections to San Franciscans. Did Google want to create a national Wi-Fi Internet network? Did the company have aspirations to become an Internet service provider, taking on industry giants AT&T and Comcast? Google denied the speculation and said it merely wanted to use the San Francisco network as a testing ground for new products for mobile phones, including online advertising that would be tailored to the location of users. Other than setting up a wireless Internet network for its hometown, Mountain View, Google hasn't bid on other municipal Wi-Fi projects. Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, has frequently extolled the virtues of using a mobile phone to search for a pizza place, with Google providing an ad for a restaurant just around the corner. Chris Silva, an analyst for Forrester Research, said that Google would have learned more from testing its ads in San Francisco than it would have in a small town like Mountain View. Capitalizing on mobile advertising could be even more important if Google is the successful bidder in a January auction of airwave frequencies by the federal government, where it is expected to be up against potential bidders such as AT&T and Verizon. Google, or its partners, would then be able to offer wireless access across the country, no doubt accompanied by Google's targeted advertising. "The spectrum will be far more lucrative than rolling out Wi-Fi networks across the country," Silva said. San Francisco's scuttled plan comes as a number of cities reconsider citywide wireless Internet access. Use in several cities where networks have been built is lower than expected, raising the questions about whether the systems are financially feasible. Chicago and Anchorage, Alaska, recently pulled out of citywide projects. have projects on hold that were to have been built by EarthLink. Craig Settles, a consultant who is focused on the wireless industry, blamed Google for some of the troubles cities are having with Wi-Fi. He said that Google's proposal to offer free access in San Francisco, at least partially offset by online advertising revenue, unrealistically raised expectations that cities could cash in on the deals. "They gave whole credence to this free ad-driven model that wasn't really credible," Settles said. "The publicity was so intense around their announcement that it created a mind set within cities that was counterproductive. "They wasted a lot of time considering the free biz model," he continued. Despite EarthLink's withdrawal, Newsom is holding out hope for a citywide Wi-Fi network. Whether he will open another round of bidding is unclear, as is Google's interest in participating. Google declined to respond to questions other than to issue the following written statement: "We hope that the city will be able to reach an agreement that will enable all San Franciscans to enjoy a free Wi-Fi network. Google is committed to promoting alternative platforms for people to access the Web no matter where they are, and we encourage others to think creatively about how to address access issues in their own communities." |