Comments on: Getting Fractal on Network Neutrality http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/22/getting-fractal-on-network-neutrality/ A Blog by Timothy B. Lee Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:37:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Fred McTaker http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/22/getting-fractal-on-network-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-13274 Fred McTaker Tue, 25 May 2010 21:25:22 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1007#comment-13274 To back Tom up a bit, and modify or enhance the "permission culture" framework, I would add "truth in advertising" to the list of concerns about effective network regulation. I think the Internet so far has fostered a useful consumer assumption: that all data packets are created equal. The two existing natural-monopoly incumbents in any region (phone and cable) have benefited from tighter control of data priority in the past, and they would like to return to that past. Telcos want to go back to the days when /their/ voice data took priority over any other type of traffic. Cable wants to go back to the days when /their/ pre-ordained video data took priority over all other traffic... that is, all traffic was one-way from only pre-chosen content providers to pre-paid consumers, with no real choice given to the consumer outside a few "bundle" rates. Only one side in these data transactions (the distributor) has any real control or choice, and control-monopoly rents are still extracted from each end. We still let the incumbents have their old monopolistic methods of data control, but they have to be truthful and say one type of data is "phone," another type is "TV," and the new type is "Internet" -- all 3 are thus managed and billed as separate items. We consumers accept that they have obvious controls over phone and TV service types, that they don't have over the Internet. They want to have control over all 3 and still call it all "the Internet," but I contend that would be false advertising. They can now take this control surreptitiously, as proven by the Comcast-BitTorrent case (among others, and we can't always depend on non-profits like EFF to suss these cheats out). Some *transparency regulation is required* to keep them from lying about this. If they're not treating my chosen packets as equal to theirs, I don't think they should be allowed to claim they're selling me "Internet access." Sure it's network access, but it's not *true Internet access.* Doing nothing guarantees they would get away with this false advertising, with no penalty whatsoever. Without equal regulation on all ISPs, the most sneaky and unethical ISP wins the profit-motive-only/screw-dumb-customers game every time. To back Tom up a bit, and modify or enhance the “permission culture” framework, I would add “truth in advertising” to the list of concerns about effective network regulation. I think the Internet so far has fostered a useful consumer assumption: that all data packets are created equal. The two existing natural-monopoly incumbents in any region (phone and cable) have benefited from tighter control of data priority in the past, and they would like to return to that past. Telcos want to go back to the days when /their/ voice data took priority over any other type of traffic. Cable wants to go back to the days when /their/ pre-ordained video data took priority over all other traffic… that is, all traffic was one-way from only pre-chosen content providers to pre-paid consumers, with no real choice given to the consumer outside a few “bundle” rates. Only one side in these data transactions (the distributor) has any real control or choice, and control-monopoly rents are still extracted from each end.

We still let the incumbents have their old monopolistic methods of data control, but they have to be truthful and say one type of data is “phone,” another type is “TV,” and the new type is “Internet” — all 3 are thus managed and billed as separate items. We consumers accept that they have obvious controls over phone and TV service types, that they don’t have over the Internet. They want to have control over all 3 and still call it all “the Internet,” but I contend that would be false advertising. They can now take this control surreptitiously, as proven by the Comcast-BitTorrent case (among others, and we can’t always depend on non-profits like EFF to suss these cheats out). Some *transparency regulation is required* to keep them from lying about this. If they’re not treating my chosen packets as equal to theirs, I don’t think they should be allowed to claim they’re selling me “Internet access.” Sure it’s network access, but it’s not *true Internet access.*

Doing nothing guarantees they would get away with this false advertising, with no penalty whatsoever. Without equal regulation on all ISPs, the most sneaky and unethical ISP wins the profit-motive-only/screw-dumb-customers game every time.

]]> By: Tom Lee http://timothyblee.com/2009/09/22/getting-fractal-on-network-neutrality/comment-page-1/#comment-3267 Tom Lee Tue, 22 Sep 2009 22:05:08 +0000 http://timothyblee.com/?p=1007#comment-3267 The "permission culture" frame is an interesting way, but it cuts both ways: in a world where network operators are free to treat applications in unpredictable ways, the authors of envelope-pushing network applications must essentially seek permission from every network operator that their app may encounter. I think that this is a vastly larger potential drag on innovation than telling network operators that envelope-pushing network management must be cleared with a single central authority. And I think you may be overstating the number of these check-ins -- it's likely to be classes of interventions that would need to be cleared with the FCC, not individual instances. This sort of pre-action contact between rule-making agencies and the organizations they regulate isn't at all unusual, and in most cases seems to work perfectly fine. The “permission culture” frame is an interesting way, but it cuts both ways: in a world where network operators are free to treat applications in unpredictable ways, the authors of envelope-pushing network applications must essentially seek permission from every network operator that their app may encounter. I think that this is a vastly larger potential drag on innovation than telling network operators that envelope-pushing network management must be cleared with a single central authority. And I think you may be overstating the number of these check-ins — it’s likely to be classes of interventions that would need to be cleared with the FCC, not individual instances. This sort of pre-action contact between rule-making agencies and the organizations they regulate isn’t at all unusual, and in most cases seems to work perfectly fine.

]]>