Telecommies

America’s chief proponent of net neutrality doesn’t seem to practice what they preach.

crossposted:

Per Reuters, Google’s board is recommending that its investors vote against a shareholder proposal from the New York City Employee Retirement System that asks Google to commit to abiding by Net Neutrality… [more]

and

[also more here]

In Maryland a new law establishes a 6% tax on computer services (specifically web design, computer repair, and programming), starting this July (WSJ).

Perhaps local state legislators aren’t aware, but these services can easily be displaced outside Maryland borders…

Net neutrality hearing merely a ’show trail’ by Derek Hunter

Edited Highlights Version:

On Feb. 25, the Federal Communications Commission went to Harvard Law School to hold a hearing on the Internet management practices of Comcast, the largest provider of broadband Internet access in the country. Why Harvard, when the FCC is located in Washington? Because Harvard is near the district represented by Rep. Ed Markey, chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, who has been a longtime advocate for regulation of the Internet.

The hearing was a typical show trial: two panels weighted heavily with experts opposing Comcast, Verizon (the only other company to participate) and all other Internet service providers on the grounds that they can’t be trusted to do what they have done since the inception of the Internet: keep it open and available for all legal traffic. The heart of the matter was whether Comcast’s rerouting of traffic using the file-sharing software BitTorrent to less crowded areas of the Internet at peak hours constituted “blocking” traffic or was simply a reasonable Internet management technique that harmed no one while ensuring improved browsing experiences for the majority of its customers.

Without managing traffic (think timed traffic lights), ISPs say there are certain times of day when Web traffic is so high (think rush hour) that there’s a risk of not having enough bandwidth to accommodate it. Abandoning network management could end up slowing the Internet for everyone. Since bandwidth is limited (as are lanes on the freeway) and BitTorrent is designed to consume as much bandwidth as possible (think a double-wide semi), Comcast has a program that bounces a tiny minority of heavy BitTorrent users to less crowded areas of the Internet during these peak times to ensure the vast majority of users simply reading e-mails, checking news or blogging don’t have their speeds slowed to a crawl. Seems like common sense — but it’s actually not common, because it rarely happens[…]

In a perfect world, there would be more than enough bandwidth to go around and management practices wouldn’t be needed, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Bandwidth costs money, and like any commodity, its use must be maximized to be efficiently distributed. The economics of this seemed to make sense to everyone except those who believe that access to the Internet is a right[…]

One point made by witnesses is that there isn’t enough competition when it comes to ISPs. Most broadband consumers have a choice between two providers, at most, so switching services if one does something you don’t like is a possibility only for some — and a limited one, at that. There’s truth to this, but increased regulation will hurt, not help, the problem of insufficient competition. What competitor in its right mind would ever enter a heavily regulated market?

(read more…)

Verizon’s pinned down by state regulations in Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey. Existing telecom regulations leave Verizon unable to compete with Comcast for internet service.

While modern, cost-conscious, consumers move their home phone service over to internet carriers, Verizon suffers. Why? Traditional phone providers are heavily regulated in these states, while internet service isn’t. Functionally, Verizon is limited strictly to traditional phone service, even as phone service moves online. The Baltimore Business Journal explains:

The Maryland Public Service Commission oversees basic public utilities, including phone services. Under state regulation, Verizon needs state approval for rate increases or the addition of new services. But states like Maryland have no authority over cable and Internet or wireless phone providers, which are monitored by the federal government.

By rolling its phone services into packages that give consumers cable and Internet or by providing phone service through an Internet connection, Comcast and Vonage avoid state oversight.

This means, for example, Verizon can’t do one of those popular high-speed internet and phoneThese backwards rules hurt both the provider and the consumer. A Verizon Maryland spokeswoman commented:

“It’s time our state moves forward by bringing telecommunications regulation up to speed with the market,… [It’s] a market where most competitors face little to no regulation.”

Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing online is the flash point of the present political conflict surrounding net neutrality. The ball started rolling when Comcast allegedly started discriminating against users of BitTorrent, a popular P2P file sharing software. Either way, the real issue is P2P software has a bad reputation for facilitating software piracy.

Clogging the internet with large illegal file transfers is disagreeable on several levels. This is where the Internet Service Provider (ISP) network management comes in.

But it’s important to stress that P2P software offers unique advantages of efficiency . Like any tool, it’s how you use it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with Bit Torrent, it just happens to be a popular tool for nefarious activities.

That’s why Verizon’s new development, P4P technology, is such good news. The Statesman explains:

“The advance is an enhancement of peer-to-peer file-sharing technology, which provides Internet users with faster downloads by gathering up pieces of a large file from the computers of many users and then cobbling them together… Sending files with the new technique along faster, cheaper paths resulted in download speeds that were an average of 60 percent faster…”

What differentiates P2P from P4P? PCMAG points out, “P4P actually works to push file’s packets from within the ISP’s network, avoiding paying for the extra bandwidth needed to reach an Internet backbone.” Theoretically, it would be a managed form of file sharing from the ISP end. It’s performance without the piracy

Verizon’s P4P holds great potential, the kind of potential a government regulated net neutrality environment threatens to destroy.

Any discussion of net neutrality should start with clarification.

First, it has nothing to do with bandwidth (at least not directly). It won’t limit the type of connection you can get (i.e. dial-up, DSL, or cable) or how much you pay for it. So those “all you can eat buffet” analogies out there don’t really fit.

Net Neutrality is about whether internet service providers (ISPs) have the right to monitor and discriminate users traffic speeds. This is a meaningful issue because until very recently, it simply hasn’t been done. Comcast allegedly got the ball rolling, discriminating against the use of bit torrent, a peer-to-peer file sharing network.

While freedom is a much cherished value online, the perceived internet rights of consumers are clashing with the responsibilities of ISPs. Should all online activities be treated equally? If bandwidth is indeed a limited resource, what happens when Mr. Smith can’t get his e-mail because too many people are swapping bootleg movies? This is a worthwhile discussion for public discourse. However, what does disturb me are calls to erect internet regulation.

At a present point when many Federal officials still struggle to understand what the internet is, granting them full micro-managing authority is a scary prospect.

My greatest fear is internet regulation encouraging a pattern of monopolies as we’ve seen in the phone, electric, oil, and cable industries.

I want a vibrant internet with fierce competition for services. If Comcast is as evil some complain, I want a new start up to capitalize on contempt, popping up like a daisy and providing faster internet service. Regulations will never do that, but they can certainly stop it. That’s the problem.

—
Net Neutrality is a new issue on my plate. As I learn more and share thoughts on this issue, this blog should grow and evolve.