Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Network Neutrality Exists!
The often-cluefull Geoff Daily heard some network manager state that "There's no such thing as network neutrality," and he swallowed it.
Now, I've looked into the hearts of men and women, and I can flatly state that there's no such thing as good people. I've analyzed at all kinds of governments to conclude that there's no such thing as democracy. So why should network neutrality be any different?
Such assertions are not only absurd, they're degrading. If people think, "Being good is bullsh*t, so why bother," the world is worse for it. Same for democracy. Same for network neutrality.
Why make such statements? Is it because it is in somebody's interest to have a non-neutral network? Or is it because sombody has been duped by people who don't want a neutral network?
My bottom line: you don't need a perfectly neutral net to affirm the concept of network neutrality. A good approximation to it, and general adherence to its principles, and appreciation of its benefits, is proof of concept for me.
-----
Now for the details. Geoff says right up front, "App-Rising.com is supported in part by AT&T, however all views and opinions expressed herein are solely my own." Right. Verizon sponsored my production, F2C: Freedom to Connect last year, and I ran it in "solely my own" way, but only after a careful mutual sniffing process by which my Verizon sponsors and I ascertained each others' stances on a number of issues and decided we could work together.
Then Geoff's insight becomes visible again when he notes that the network manager "has no interest in driving profit, he just wants to keep the network running." This is important. The untying of profit motive from network operations does tend to purify the act of network management, as I've argued here, here, and here.
And finally, Geoff makes an attempt to separate content from conduit by claiming that we're confusing network neutrality with Internet neutrality. By the latter, I think he means content (app, service, etc.) neutrality. Indeed, the most vehement opposition to network neutrality stems from the fear of anti-competitive discrimination, so if I am reading his closing arguments right, we're in agreement that, in Geoff's words, "we may need safeguards to protect Internet neutrality." Amen. We *do* need them. Along with big, fat, cheap, stupid pipes and the OCCASIONAL exception where some light-handed traffic management may be necessary, and when it is, it should be separated de jure or de facto from profit-and-loss responsibility for content, app or service.
I'm going to Camp Fiber, in Lafayette LA, next weekend, an event brilliantly conceived and produced by Geoff Daily in conjunction with Lafayette Utility Systems, the muni fiber folks who slayed Cox and BellSouth to bring locally owned fiber to everybody in town. I look forward to continuing the discussion there!
Now, I've looked into the hearts of men and women, and I can flatly state that there's no such thing as good people. I've analyzed at all kinds of governments to conclude that there's no such thing as democracy. So why should network neutrality be any different?
Such assertions are not only absurd, they're degrading. If people think, "Being good is bullsh*t, so why bother," the world is worse for it. Same for democracy. Same for network neutrality.
Why make such statements? Is it because it is in somebody's interest to have a non-neutral network? Or is it because sombody has been duped by people who don't want a neutral network?
My bottom line: you don't need a perfectly neutral net to affirm the concept of network neutrality. A good approximation to it, and general adherence to its principles, and appreciation of its benefits, is proof of concept for me.
-----
Now for the details. Geoff says right up front, "App-Rising.com is supported in part by AT&T, however all views and opinions expressed herein are solely my own." Right. Verizon sponsored my production, F2C: Freedom to Connect last year, and I ran it in "solely my own" way, but only after a careful mutual sniffing process by which my Verizon sponsors and I ascertained each others' stances on a number of issues and decided we could work together.
UPDATE: Geoff Daily writes to say that nothing he blogs is pre-approved by AT&T. (I'm not talking about pre-approval, but rather about matching mind-sets. Notice that AT&T sponsors Geoff, but not, say, Bruce Kushnick.) He also informs me that his app-rising.com blog is now also sponsored by Lafayette Utility Systems. (This is great news! Now get one more sponsor Geoff, a slave with three masters is a free man!)So Geoff disses one of the central tenets of the Internet's success on the say-so of a network manager who cites two examples of why network management is needed. The first example is video conferencing, the second is the p2p bandwidth hog. What is left unsaid -- but is key to both of these examples -- is that the cost of raw connectivity is way, way, way too high. In Japan, for example, a residential customer can get a gigabit/s for $50 a month, compared to the U.S. where the best deal is three times higher and half-fast. When connectivity is that cheap, you might not need all that expensive QOS and traffic-shaping gear. But then AT&T (to pick a random example) would need to cut its prices and improve its network and its services.
Then Geoff's insight becomes visible again when he notes that the network manager "has no interest in driving profit, he just wants to keep the network running." This is important. The untying of profit motive from network operations does tend to purify the act of network management, as I've argued here, here, and here.
And finally, Geoff makes an attempt to separate content from conduit by claiming that we're confusing network neutrality with Internet neutrality. By the latter, I think he means content (app, service, etc.) neutrality. Indeed, the most vehement opposition to network neutrality stems from the fear of anti-competitive discrimination, so if I am reading his closing arguments right, we're in agreement that, in Geoff's words, "we may need safeguards to protect Internet neutrality." Amen. We *do* need them. Along with big, fat, cheap, stupid pipes and the OCCASIONAL exception where some light-handed traffic management may be necessary, and when it is, it should be separated de jure or de facto from profit-and-loss responsibility for content, app or service.
I'm going to Camp Fiber, in Lafayette LA, next weekend, an event brilliantly conceived and produced by Geoff Daily in conjunction with Lafayette Utility Systems, the muni fiber folks who slayed Cox and BellSouth to bring locally owned fiber to everybody in town. I look forward to continuing the discussion there!
Technorati Tags: AT&T, Content-Conduit, GeoffDaily, LafayetteLA, NetworkNeutrality, StructuralSeparation, Stupid Network
Comments:
Post a Comment
