Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Is Telepocalypse a Good Thing?
What is the meaning of Telepocalypse? Is it the withering away of the telephone companies because network connectivity is so abundant and ubiquitous that there's nothing to sell? Or is it that dark day when the Internet becomes nothing more than TV-with-a-buy-button-on-steroids?
Martin Geddes recent Telepocalyptic entry makes me think that maybe he is rooting for definition #2. He tries to deconstruct the term, "Network Neutrality," but he imputes far more complexity than is warranted, as if to cast aspersions on the entire concept of network neutrality and all of its adherents. His point?
Network neutrality is simple. It is simply content and application agnosticism. When a network operator deliberately introduces an impairment in their network aimed at specific applications or classes of applications, that violates network neutrality.
Blocking Port 25 violates network neutrality. Introducing upstream jitter deliberately to make third-party VOIP impossible violates network neutrality. Detecting Skype and blocking it violates network neutrality. The broadcast flag violates network neutrality. Capping long downloads to discourage TV over IP violates network neutrality. These fail the content and application agnosticism test. But saying "don't run a server," in a service agreement is not a violation of network neutrality. It is just garden variety discrimination.
It is all about market power. About a year ago I was unhappy when Continental Cablevision blocked my Port 25, and I switched. Thank goodness I could switch, and thank goodness the only other provider available to me was not a blocker. If I could do that among multiple providers, I would be happy. In such cases, the marketplace itself would enforce whatever the marketplace wanted. Then we'd have no worries about Internet freedom. But until that day arrives, the absence of fair use rules for the Internet in the name of a "Free Market" that does not exist simply hastens the day when the Internet ceases being a place for citizens and, instead, becomes TV-on-steroids-with-a-buy-button.
UPDATE: Martin Geddes' reply.
Martin Geddes recent Telepocalyptic entry makes me think that maybe he is rooting for definition #2. He tries to deconstruct the term, "Network Neutrality," but he imputes far more complexity than is warranted, as if to cast aspersions on the entire concept of network neutrality and all of its adherents. His point?
In fact, everything about the Regulatorium that the telcos know, love and play like a Stradivarius messes up freedom of contract, freedom of association and property rights. Franchises mess up these freedoms. CALEA messes up these freedoms. Universal service messes up these freedoms. E-911 messes up these freedoms. Laws against municipal market entry mess up these freedoms. Special access to public rights of way messes up these freedoms. Laws that prohibit non-US companies from buying US telcos mess up these freedoms. Spectrum regulation messes up these freedoms. So why should network neutrality be any different?
Net neutrality messes up freedom of contract, freedom of association, and property rights.
Network neutrality is simple. It is simply content and application agnosticism. When a network operator deliberately introduces an impairment in their network aimed at specific applications or classes of applications, that violates network neutrality.
Blocking Port 25 violates network neutrality. Introducing upstream jitter deliberately to make third-party VOIP impossible violates network neutrality. Detecting Skype and blocking it violates network neutrality. The broadcast flag violates network neutrality. Capping long downloads to discourage TV over IP violates network neutrality. These fail the content and application agnosticism test. But saying "don't run a server," in a service agreement is not a violation of network neutrality. It is just garden variety discrimination.
It is all about market power. About a year ago I was unhappy when Continental Cablevision blocked my Port 25, and I switched. Thank goodness I could switch, and thank goodness the only other provider available to me was not a blocker. If I could do that among multiple providers, I would be happy. In such cases, the marketplace itself would enforce whatever the marketplace wanted. Then we'd have no worries about Internet freedom. But until that day arrives, the absence of fair use rules for the Internet in the name of a "Free Market" that does not exist simply hastens the day when the Internet ceases being a place for citizens and, instead, becomes TV-on-steroids-with-a-buy-button.
UPDATE: Martin Geddes' reply.
Technorati Tags: FCC, NetworkNeutrality, Telepocalypse, Regulatorium
Comments:
"Network Neutrality" is something you implicitly expect the moment you sign a "connectivity contract" with a Provider.
That is:
I agree to pay this sum of money monthly to have Internet access at this average speed...
What I do when I am connected IS MY BUSINESS.
And I expect to be able to use it and take advantage of ALL THE POSSIBILITIES I can expect.
I expect a certain kind of NEUTRALITY on the side of whoever gives me Internet access.
Because we are used to believe to live in democratic countries, because they let us believe so, because we think to have a certain kind of FREEDOM.
The moment the ISP or Broadband provider limits my usage of the lines, closing certain ports or limiting my downloads I have every right to believe that in one way or in another I have been cheated.
Different is the case in which I deliberately choosed a provider who declared to block certain ports or to block my downloads.
In this case I do not talk about "lack of Net Neutrality", but rules that I can or cannot agree.
It is very dangerous what Martin says, to tolerate implicitly an infringiment on "Net Neutrality".
They begin with one port and finish to charge ALSO for the Content I download.
For example.
When I subscribe to a Cable TV or buy a satellite receiver, I in the first case pay for the connection to the cable Network and in the second my satellite receiver.
ONLY when I want to access a "Pay TV" I agree to pay for the content.
And the cable operator will never charge me if I decide to look at the News or at Movies or one hour a day or 24 hours a day.
Patrizia
Post a Comment
That is:
I agree to pay this sum of money monthly to have Internet access at this average speed...
What I do when I am connected IS MY BUSINESS.
And I expect to be able to use it and take advantage of ALL THE POSSIBILITIES I can expect.
I expect a certain kind of NEUTRALITY on the side of whoever gives me Internet access.
Because we are used to believe to live in democratic countries, because they let us believe so, because we think to have a certain kind of FREEDOM.
The moment the ISP or Broadband provider limits my usage of the lines, closing certain ports or limiting my downloads I have every right to believe that in one way or in another I have been cheated.
Different is the case in which I deliberately choosed a provider who declared to block certain ports or to block my downloads.
In this case I do not talk about "lack of Net Neutrality", but rules that I can or cannot agree.
It is very dangerous what Martin says, to tolerate implicitly an infringiment on "Net Neutrality".
They begin with one port and finish to charge ALSO for the Content I download.
For example.
When I subscribe to a Cable TV or buy a satellite receiver, I in the first case pay for the connection to the cable Network and in the second my satellite receiver.
ONLY when I want to access a "Pay TV" I agree to pay for the content.
And the cable operator will never charge me if I decide to look at the News or at Movies or one hour a day or 24 hours a day.
Patrizia
