Re: It's the Internet Stupid

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>
Date: June 8, 2009 2:00:47 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] It's the Internet Stupid


At 05:20 AM 6/8/2009, David Isenberg wrote:

> I've told Brett many times, and I'd like to say it again publicly,
> that even though I favor, "prohibit[ing] discriminatory or  
> preferential
> treatment of packets based on sender, recipient or packet contents,"
> I ALSO FAVOR AN EXEMPTION FOR SMALL ISPS. I don't know exactly where
> "small" ends, but if the ISP is independent and serving its community
> well, I wouldn't bind it to network neutrality rules so strict that
> it would put the ISP out of business.
>
> As I say, I've told Brett this many times, but he never seems to
> remember.

There is a big difference between not remembering and disagreeing. I  
have told Mr. Isenberg, just as many times as he has proposed them,  
that "carve-outs" for small entities are not an acceptable solution  
for at least three reasons.

Firstly, the fact that one would immediately have to consider "carve  
outs" to avoid obviously bad consequences should set off alarm bells:  
it is a sign that the proposed regulation is fundamentally wrong in  
its approach and in principle. The simple fact is that networks NEED  
to be managed -- and, yes, that means the ability to recognize traffic  
and treat it appropriately. In other words, the network absolutely  
must "discriminate" -- in the non-pejorative sense of the term -- to  
work well. The Internet protocols were designed, from the very  
beginning, with provisions for quality of service and policy routing  
for this very reason.

Secondly, if one starts carving out specific exemptions, the law  
begins to look like Swiss cheese -- and is more and more subject to  
exceptions that favor large and powerful special interests rather than  
small operators.

Finally, the proposed regulation would be unable to adapt to rapidly  
changing or unforeseen circumstances -- and large entities with malign  
intent would be far more able to take advantage of this than small  
players.

The correct solution is to go back to first principles. No regulation  
is needed if we encourage robust, fair competition among providers of  
ALL sizes, so that the market can quickly and ably deal with any  
practice that consumers find undesirable (including ones not  
contemplated by the proposed regulation). The only government  
intervention that is needed at all is the prohibition of  
anticompetitive practices (which include - but are not limited to -   
price squeezing, price gouging in the "middle mile" by ILECs, and  
refusal to deal by backbone owners).

The onerous "network neutrality" regulation advocated by Mr. Isenberg  
isn't actually "neutral" at all. It favors one particular large  
corporation: Google. A key goal of this regulation is to prevent ISPs  
from adding value to bandwidth or to their network or from realizing a  
fair return on their hard work. Google is tirelessly lobbying, both  
directly and via a large number of surrogates in DC and elsewhere, to  
get such regulation instated by government bodies worldwide. (Its  
primary foci, at present, are the US, Canada, and the EU.)

For an excellent analysis that explains why Google is lavishing  
Googlebucks on many individuals and groups which advocate policies  
that would undermine both copyright owners and ISPs, see Andrew  
Orlowski’s articles at

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/15/neutrality_in_europe_analysis/print.html

and

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/01/google_wave/.

--Brett Glass





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com