farbot.com

One of this year's big issues has been network neutrality, which has been shortened into a more sound-bite-friendly "net neutrality". I haven't managed to put up a thread on it yet, which is unfortunate, so here it is.

First, we need a definition. I read through some of the Wikipedia entry on this, and this is not a bad piece:

Basically ISPs -- in the form of Big Cable (is there any other kind of cable?) and Big Telecom since the days of small ISPs are long gone -- want to be able to charge websites and other internet-based service providers additional fees/rates/charges to ensure their bits gets to the consumer faster...than someone who doesn't pay those fees/rates/charges.

With Big Telecom now offering video services, they join Big Cable in adding the wish to have the legal authority to slow down high-bandwidth services entering their networks at will -- perhaps not even offering the ability to pay to get through faster. Things like commercial internet-delivered video rentals, paid music streaming services from places not affiliated with the Big Cable/Telecom would fall into this category. Plug in VOIP offerings from Cable, Telecom, and outside providers, and you have another vested interest in them having their competitors pay through the nose to get on the network.

Fast, Faster, Fastest
Recent FCC deregulation and rulings have created a climate where this kind of discussion has occurred. Previously, ISPs were considered similar to phone companies -- they were considered common carriers that had a duty under the law to carry their competitor's traffic. Indeed, the internet as we know it would never have come to pass if each little fiefdom refused to interconnect. I can already hear you telling me "Yes, yes, I get it, that's the inter part of the internet."

In years gone by, internet service has been purchased by consumers and hosting providers and anyone else at certain speeds. You're buying X kbit down and X kbit up, and if you're lucky you can get services that measure these things in Megabits down and if you're even luckier you can get something measured in Megabits up.

Network neutrality has been the way things worked for a long time, and basically it's let anybody put a box on the internet and invent something new, and basically know that -- within the technical constraints of the TCP and UDP protocols -- you can move data around and have the data be anything you like. It can be an HTML file going to a browser. It can be characters going to a command line. It can be really choppy chunks of data being "streamed" to a program receiver that turns them back into audio, later becoming fast audio, and after that video. You can even invent your own protocols on top of TCP like HTTP or FTP or BitTorrent or Gnutella or...

The sky is the limit on the internet. The conventional wisdom has been that as high-speed bandwidth rollout continues and permeates an area, higher bandwidth applications, richer internet applications will appear, and with it new opportunities, businesses, fortunes made and lost. It sounds like a brave new world.

If you're Big Telecom, that's a world that you want to meter every end of, to get usage fees from, not just speeds on the lines, and that's the motivation: greed. Hosting providers already buy bandwidth at certain, metered rates from so-called upstream providers, so hosting sites does cost more when you're more popular. So what's the complaint that requires network neutrality to get the axe?

I guess Big Telecom thinks that having their monopolies on telephone and cable services aren't enough to guarantee revenue. I can't think of any other rationale.

More to come...
More postings on legislation and recent actions to come.

Google
One of the most popular sites, Google, has been pushing hard for network neutrality. They've gone on the record and said that if network neutrality isn't passed, and they detect abuse by the telecoms, they will file suit with the DOJ's anti-trust division.