Sunday, December 28, 2008
The meanings of Network Neutrality
Ed Felten has posted a nice taxonomy of the several meanings people take when they use the term Network Neutrality, briefly:
I've been developing a taxonomy of issues that interact with and are bound with Network Neutrality. So far there are six items:
- End-to-End Design
- Nonexclusionary Business Practice
- Content Nondiscrimination
I've been developing a taxonomy of issues that interact with and are bound with Network Neutrality. So far there are six items:
- Scarcity Management -- the idea that network elements are scarce and expensive and need managing by their operator.
- Business Model Preservation -- the idea that if networks are completely stupid and just deliver the bits, they're a commodity that one can't make money running. This is also tied to the idea that telcos and cablecos think of themselves as sellers of end-user applications rather than conduits to other providers' apps.
- Non-Standard Handling of Data -- the idea that a provider of Internet connectivity has the power to handle sets of bits differently based on criteria that are not specified in public standards. Non-standard handling includes pricing plans that require charging differentially for such non-standard handling.
- Innovation Suppression -- non-standard handling of data presents a barrier to new apps -- they might not work everywhere.
- Gathering Personal Information -- the idea of adding value to a commodity connection by figuring out what the person at the end of the connection values. The gathering itself doesn't necessarily change how the data move through the network, but Andrew Odlyzko pointed out in 2003 that this practice provides a compelling commercial impetus to handling bits in non-standard ways.
- Free Speech -- non-standard handling of data may exist for reasons other than business. Making less money may not be the only thing a provider dislikes.
Technorati Tags: EdFelten, End-to-End, NetworkNeutrality, Organizational Culture
Comments:
David:
Alas, there aren't one, or two, or three, or N flavors of "network neutrality." There are at least as many as there are people who discuss it. Why? Because, as I said in an earlier posting, it's an amorphous bundle of ideas and issues that doesn't start with a clear definition, goal, or mission statement. Discussions of it turn into a modern day version of the 19th century poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant," by John Godfrey Saxe (now out of copyright, at least until Disney has the terms of copyrights extended again):
It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.
The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall".
The second, feeling of his tusk,
Cried, "Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear".
The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Then boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake."
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
It's time to address some of the issues and ideas individually and dismiss others completely. For example, we do not want the government legislating technical decisions, so such things as mandating "end to end design" (a fallacy, since the network would fall apart completely without intelligence in the center) are right out. The same is true of business models: to lock them into place via legislation would be to ossify the industry and kill not only innovation but also consumer choice.
Privacy is an orthogonal issue to all of the others and doesn't even belong in the bundle; it should be addressed completely separately. And free speech is a red herring; it's not being threatened.
In the words of Theodore Seuss Geisel:
This mess is so big, and so deep, and so tall
You can not clean it up. There is no way at all.
For the new year, it's time to throw the whole mess out and start from scratch. Without corporate money driving things the wrong way.
Post a Comment
Alas, there aren't one, or two, or three, or N flavors of "network neutrality." There are at least as many as there are people who discuss it. Why? Because, as I said in an earlier posting, it's an amorphous bundle of ideas and issues that doesn't start with a clear definition, goal, or mission statement. Discussions of it turn into a modern day version of the 19th century poem, "The Blind Men and the Elephant," by John Godfrey Saxe (now out of copyright, at least until Disney has the terms of copyrights extended again):
It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.
The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall".
The second, feeling of his tusk,
Cried, "Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear".
The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Then boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake."
The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
It's time to address some of the issues and ideas individually and dismiss others completely. For example, we do not want the government legislating technical decisions, so such things as mandating "end to end design" (a fallacy, since the network would fall apart completely without intelligence in the center) are right out. The same is true of business models: to lock them into place via legislation would be to ossify the industry and kill not only innovation but also consumer choice.
Privacy is an orthogonal issue to all of the others and doesn't even belong in the bundle; it should be addressed completely separately. And free speech is a red herring; it's not being threatened.
In the words of Theodore Seuss Geisel:
This mess is so big, and so deep, and so tall
You can not clean it up. There is no way at all.
For the new year, it's time to throw the whole mess out and start from scratch. Without corporate money driving things the wrong way.
# posted by 
: 12/28/2008 3:21 PM
: 12/28/2008 3:21 PM
